Text -- John 10:22 (NET)

Jesus at the Feast of Dedication

10:22 Then came the feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Joh 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 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 10:22-39 and 10:1-21, possibly nearly three months (from just after tabernacles Joh 7:37 to dedication Joh 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 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).

Robertson: Joh 10:22

Winter ( cheimōn ).

Old word from cheima (cheō , to pour, rain, or from chiōn , snow). See Mat 24:20.

Vincent: Joh 10:22

Feast of the dedication ( ἐγκαίνια )

Only here in the New Testament. The word signifies renewal , from καινός , new , fresh . Josephus calls it φῶτα , lights . It was instituted by Judas Maccabaeus (b.c. 164), in memory of the cleansing of the temple from the pollutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. The victorious Jews, says Dean Stanley, " entered and found the scene of havoc which the Syrian occupation had left. The corridors of the priests' chambers, which encircled the temple, were torn down; the gates were in ashes, the altar was disfigured, and the whole platform was overgrown as if with a mountain jungle or forest glade. It was a heartrending spectacle. Their first impulse was to cast themselves headlong on the pavement, and blow the loud horns which accompanied all mournful as well as all joyful occasions - the tocsin as well as the chimes of the nation. Then, whilst the foreign garrison was kept at bay, the warriors first began the elaborate process of cleansing the polluted place.... For the interior of the temple everything had to be refurnished afresh - vessels, candlesticks and incense-altar, and tables and curtains. At last all was completed, and on the 25th of Chisleu (middle of December), the same day that, three years before, the profanation had occurred, the temple was rededicated.... What most lived in the recollection of the time was that the perpetual light blazed again. The golden candlestick was no longer to be had. Its place was taken by an iron chandelier, cased in wood" (" Jewish Church," pt. iii., 345, 346). According to tradition, the oil was found to have been desecrated, and only one flagon of pure oil, sealed with the High-Priest's signet, was found, sufficient to feed the candlestick for a single day. But by a miracle the flagon was replenished during eight days, until a fresh supply could be procured. The festival lasted for eight days. Lights were kindled, not only in the temple, but in every home. Pious householders lighted a lamp for every inmate of the home, and the most zealous added a light every night for every individual, so that if a house with ten inmates began with ten lights, it would end with eighty. The Jews assembled in the temple, or in the synagogues of the places where they resided, bearing branches of palm, and singing psalms of praise. No fast or mourning, on account of any calamity or bereavement, was permitted to commence during the festival.

Wesley: Joh 10:22

Instituted by Judas Maccabeus, 1 Macc. iv, 59, when he purged and dedicated the altar and temple after they had been polluted. So our Lord observed festivals even of human appointment. Is it not, at least, innocent for us to do the same?

JFB: Joh 10:22-23

Celebrated rather more than two months after the feast of tabernacles, during which intermediate period our Lord seems to have remained in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. It was instituted by Jude Maccabeus, to commemorate the purification of the temple from the profanations to which it had been subjected by Antiochus Epiphanes 165 B.C., and kept for eight days, from the twenty-fifth Chisleu (December), the day on which Judas began the first joyous celebration of it (I Maccabees 4:52, 56, 59; and JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 7.7.7).

JFB: Joh 10:22-23

Implying some inclemency. Therefore,

Clarke: Joh 10:22

The feast of the dedication - This was a feast instituted by Judas Maccabeus, in commemoration of his purifying the temple after it had been defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. This feast began on the twenty-fifth of the month Cisleu, (which answers to the eighteenth of our December), and continued for eight days. When Antiochus had heard that the Jews had made great rejoicings, on account of a report that had been spread of his death, he hastened out of Egypt to Jerusalem, took the city by storm, and slew of the inhabitants in three days forty thousand persons; and forty thousand more he sold for slaves to the neighboring nations. Not contented with this, he sacrificed a great sow on the altar of burnt offerings; and, broth being made by his command of some of the flesh, he sprinkled it all over the temple, that he might defile it to the uttermost. See Prideaux’ s Connection, vol. iii. p. 236, edit. 1725. After this, the whole of the temple service seems to have been suspended for three years, great dilapidations having taken place also in various parts of the buildings: see 1 Maccabees 4:36, etc. As Judas Maccabaeus not only restored the temple service, and cleansed it from pollution, etc., but also repaired the ruins of it, the feast was called τα εγκαινια, the renovation

Clarke: Joh 10:22

It was winter - Χειμων ην, or, it was stormy or rainy weather. And this is the reason, probably, why our Lord is represented as walking in Solomon’ s porch, or portico, Joh 10:23. Though it certainly was in winter when this feast was held, yet it does not appear that the word above refers so much to the time of the year as to the state of the weather. Indeed, there was no occasion to add it was winter, when the feast of the dedication was mentioned, because every body knew that, as that feast was held on the twenty-fifth of the month Cisleu, it was in the winter season

John has here omitted all that Jesus did from the time when he left Jerusalem, after the feast of tabernacles in September was ended, until the feast of the dedication in the December following: and he did it probably because he found that the other evangelists had given an account of what our Lord did in the interval. St. Luke relates what our Lord did on his way from Galilee to Jerusalem, to this feast, Luke 17:11-37; Luk 18:1-14. Observe, likewise, that this time here mentioned was the fourth time (according to John’ s account) that Jesus went up to the feasts at Jerusalem in about a year: for, first, he went up to the feast of the passover, Joh 2:13; next to the feast of pentecost, as it seems to have been, Joh 5:1; then to the feast of tabernacles, Joh 7:2, Joh 7:10; and, lastly, to the feast of the passover in which he was crucified. John seems purposely to have pointed out his presence in Jerusalem at these four feasts, because all the other evangelists have omitted the mention of every one of them. See Bishop Pearce; and see the note on Joh 5:1.

Calvin: Joh 10:22

22.And it was the feast of Dedication The Greek word (ἐγκαίνια) which we have translated dedication, ²⁹⁸ properly signifies renovations; because the temple, which had been polluted, was again consecrated by the command of Judas Maccabaeus; and at that time it was enacted that the day of the new dedication or consecration should be celebrated every year as a festival, that the people might recall to remembrance the grace of God, which had put an end to the tyranny of Antiochus. Christ appeared in the temple at that time, according to custom, that his preaching might yield more abundant fruit amidst a large assembly of men.

Defender: Joh 10:22

The "Feast of Dedication" is what is now known as Hanukkah which occurs during the Christmas season. The events described in John 7:1-10:21 occurred during and immediately following the "Feast of Tabernacles" (Joh 7:2), around two months earlier than those in John 10:22-39. The "Feast of the Dedication" had been observed since the days of the Maccabees, around 165 b.c., commemorating the cleansing of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes."

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Joh 10:22

The feast of the dedication - Literally, the feast of the renewing, or of the renovation. This feast was instituted by Judas Maccabaeus, in the year 164 b.c. The temple and city were taken by Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 167 b.c. He killed 40,000 inhabitants, and sold 40,000 more as slaves. In addition to this, he sacrificed a sow on the altar of burnt-offerings, and a broth being made of this, he sprinkled it all over the temple. The city and temple were recovered three years afterward by Judas Maccabaeus, and the temple was purified with great pomp and solemnity. The ceremony of purification continued through eight days, during which Judas presented magnificent victims, and celebrated the praise of God with hymns and psalms (Josephus, Ant., b. xii. ch. 11). "They decked, also, the forefront of the temple with crowns of gold and with shields, and the gates and chambers they renewed and hanged doors upon them:"1 Macc. 4:52-59. On this account it was called the feast of renovation or dedication. Josephus calls it the feast of lights, because the city was illuminated, as expressive of joy. The feast began on the 25th day of Chisleu , answering to the fifteenth day of December. The festival continued for eight days, with continued demonstrations of joy.

It was winter - The feast was celebrated in the winter. The word here implies that it was cold and inclement, and it is given as a reason why he walked in Solomon’ s porch.

Poole: Joh 10:22

This verse affords two questions, which have not a little troubled interpreters.

1. What feast of dedication this was?

2. Whether dedications of places to the worship of God be warrantable or no, in that manner as they are dedicated amongst the papists at this day?

As to the first of these, that which we have about it in Scripture is this: Exo 40:1-15 , we have God’ s command and direction for the hallowing, or dedication, of the sanctuary, or the tabernacle, which was the first house we read of in Scripture set apart for the public worship of God. We have a particular account of Moses’ s punctual obedience to that command, Lev 8:1-36 . When the temple was built by Solomon, we read of Solomon’ s dedication of it; but nothing of ceremony used at it, only a multitude of sacrifices offered, (which was God’ s ordinary worship in the Jewish church), and a feast kept fourteen days: we read of no law that he made for the annual keeping of it; no obligation upon all the males in Israel to be present at it. As concerning the other solemn feasts which God appointed, Lev 23:1-44 , Solomon’ s feast of dedication in this differed from them, that it held double the time, for seven or eight days was the longest time that any of those feasts were kept. This temple was destroyed by the Chaldeans and Babylonians, and rebuilt by Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as we read in the books known by those names. In analogy to the practice of Solomon, when they had finished the building of the temple, there was another feast of dedication kept; of which we read, Ezr 6:16-18 ; but we read of nothing done in that dedication but the offering of one hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, and twelve he-goats; and setting the priests and Levites in order for the service of God. This temple was defaced by Antiochus, but not wholly ruined; and was repaired and purified by Judas Maccabeus, of which we read, /Apc 2Mac 2:23 10:6-8 /Apc 1Mac 4:52,58 ; which books of Maccabees, though they be no canonical Scripture, yet are as good a piece of ecclesiastical history as any: and Josephus also giveth us an account of it, (Antiq. 1. 12.

c. 11.). We do not read of any thing they did, saving offering sacrifices, and setting things in order, according to the law of Moses, and feasting; Josephus tells us they used all lawful pleasures. We do not read, that either God appointed an annual feast of dedication for the sanctuary; nor Solomon, nor Ezra, for either of the temples; but we read twice in the book of Maccabees, and Josephus (writing the Jewish history) tells us, that Judas Maccabeus made it a law, That the feast should be kept yearly for eight days, in memory of that mercy which God had showed them. This was without doubt the feast of dedication here mentioned: for this feast began upon the twenty-fifth day of the month Chisleu, which answereth our months of November and December, and took in part of each; so it agreeth with the text, which saith that it was winter; whereas Solomon’ s dedication was in autumn; Ezra’ s in the spring. Some make a question, Whether Judas Maccabeus did well in appointing this annual feast, neither Solomon nor Ezra having, that we read of, before done any such thing: and that our Saviour was not at this feast in any honour to the feast, but only to take advantage of the multitude of people that met, to preach the gospel. For my own part, as I will not defend, so I durst not condemn him: I see no more that he did in this, than was done, Est 9:27,28 , as to the days of Purim. Magistrates certainly have a power to appoint public days, yea, annual days of thanksgivings, for mercies never to be forgotten. Indeed they cannot make a day holy, so as it shall be a sin against God to labour in it, or to use any pleasures (as in the case of the sabbath); but they may command the public worship of God to be performed on particular days, and men ought to attend it when with convenience they can; only they ought to take care that such days be not spent in luxury and profaneness, and that they be for signal providences, and not so multiplied, and frequently renewing, as that the service of them degenerate into mere matter of form. Whether Christ went up in order to the feast, or because of the great concourse of people he knew would be there at that time, cannot be determined.

For the second question, it is not so much a question, whether it be lawful in a solemn and decent manner to consecrate a house to the public worship of God, by such acts of worship as God hath appointed under the gospel, such as prayer and praise, reading, preaching, and hearing the word; as whether it may be done by such rites and ceremonies as the papists do it with, for the which there is no institution. For the former, though it may be some will not agree it necessary; yet, certainly, no sober person can deny, but if a place be made for people ordinarily to meet in to worship God, there they may as well meet at the first to praise God for his mercy, and to beg his presence when they shall there meet together to worship God, and to hear his word, as they may meet there afterwards for prayer, praise, preaching, or hearing. But this satisfieth not the papists. They first do it by many superstitious ceremonies. Secondly, they plead for the holiness of the place when so consecrated. As for the ceremonies of their consecrations, or dedications, Bellarmine reckoneth up eight.

1. The painting twelve crosses in the several parts of the house to be consecrated, and lighting up twelve lamps, one at every cross; to signify the twelve apostle, who carried the banner of the cross throughout the world.

2. The bishop’ s knocking at the door with a pastoral staff, commanding the devil to give place and invoking of God, the angels, and the saints, to grant their presence in that place; which they make to signify the opening of people’ s hearts by the preaching of the gospel.

3. The scattering of ashes upon the floor of the place, upon which the bishop writes letters of the Latin and Greek alphabet, in the figure of the cross.

4. The sprinkling of the place with holy water, and lighting up wax candles.

5. The anointing of the crosses before mentioned, and painted on the walls.

6. The sprinkling of the place with a mixture of water, wine, salt, and ashes.

7. The anointing of the temple and the alter.

8. The keeping of a festival upon it. And for all these they have devised several significances, too vain and fanciful to repeat.

For none of which we know the least warrant in holy writ; nor can we conceive how any consecration can imprint any character of holiness upon a place, or make prayers offered up in or toward it more acceptable; though we know it did so as to the temple, both because it was an eminent type of Christ, and also because of the particular promises made to it, 1Ki 9:1-28 ; which were not applicable to the synagogues, which were the Jews’ ordinary meeting places for public worship; but only to the temple, upon the account before mentioned. Though we say that all places for that use ought to be used with all imaginable decency, and we ought during the public worship of God to carry ourselves in them with all reverence, because of the angels, and because of the special presence of God, promised to the assemblies of his people in his name, and for his public worship.

Lightfoot: Joh 10:22

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.   

[It was the feast of the Dedication.] I. The rise and original of this feast must be fetched from the story, 1Ma 4:52; etc., of which we have noted something already. The Jewish masters have these passages about it:   

"They were seized with such infinite pleasure in the restoration of their sacred rites, being, after so long a time, so unexpectedly possessed of their religion again, that they bound it by a law to posterity, that they should celebrate the restitution of their sacred rites by a feast of eight days' continuance. And from that time to this do we still celebrate this feast, calling it by the name of 'Lights'; giving that name to this feast, as I suppose, because we obtained such a liberty so much beyond all hope."   

One would believe that the name only of lights; or candles; was given to this feast: I say a name only; for we have no mention here of the 'lighting of candles.' One would believe also that the eight days decreed for the celebration of this feast was done after the pattern of the eight days' feast of Tabernacles: but you will find in the Talmudic authors that it is far otherwise, and they have a cunning way of talking concerning it.   

"The Rabbins have a tradition: From the five-and-twentieth day of the month Chisleu there are eight days of the Encaenia [or feast of Dedication], in which time it is not lawful either to weep or fast. For when the Greeks entered into the Temple, they defiled all the oil that was there. But when the kingdom of the Asmoneans had conquered them, they sought and could not find but one single vial of oil that had been laid up under the seal of the chief priest; nor was there enough in it but to light for one day. There was a great miracle: for they lighted up the lamps from that oil for eight days together: so that, the year after, they instituted the space of eight days for the solemnizing that feast."   

Maimonides relates the same things, and adds more: "Upon this occasion the wise men of that generation appointed, that eight days from the 25th of the month Chisleu should be set apart for days of rejoicing and the Hallel; and that they should light up candles at the doors of every house each evening of those days, to keep up the memory of that miracle. Those days are called Dedication; and it is forbidden upon all those days either to weep or fast, as in the days of Purim," etc.   

Again: "How many candles do they light? It is commanded that every house should set up at least one, let the inhabitants there be more or one only. But he that does honour to the command sets up his candles according to the number of the persons that are in the house. And he again that does more honour to it still sets up one candle for every person in the house the first night, and doubles it the second night. For example, if there be ten persons in the house, the first night there are ten candles lighted; the second night, twenty; the third night, thirty; so that on the eighth night it comes to fourscore."   

It would be too tedious to transcribe what he relates about singing the Hallel upon that feast: the place where the candle is fixed, which ordinarily is without doors, but in time of danger or persecution it is within, etc. Let what I have already quoted suffice, with the addition of this one instance more:   

"The wife of Tarchinus (whose bones may they be crushed!) brought forth a son the evening of the ninth day of the month Ab, and then all Israel mourned. The child died upon the feast of Dedication. Then said the Israelites, 'Shall we light up candles, or not?' They said, 'We will light them, come what will come.' So they lighted them. Upon which, there were some that went and accused them before the wife of Tarchin, saying, 'The Jews mourned when thou broughtest forth a son; and when that son died they set up candles.' " Who this Tarquinus or Tarquinius was, whether they meant the emperor Trajan or some other, we will not make any inquiry, nor is it tanti. However, the story goes on and tells us, that the woman, calling her husband, accused the Jews, stirring him up to revenge, which he executed accordingly by a slaughter amongst them.   

[The feast of the Dedication.] In the title of the thirtieth Psalm Psa 30:1, the Greek interpreters translate Dedication; by which the Jewish masters seem to understand the dedication of the Temple; whereas really it was no other than the lustration and cleansing of David's house after Absalom had polluted it by his wickedness and filthiness: which indeed we may not unfitly compare with the purging again of the Temple after that the Gentiles had polluted it.   

[At Jerusalem.] It was at Jerusalem the feast of the Dedication. Not as the Passover, Pentecost, and feast of Tabernacles, were wont to be at Jerusalem, because those feasts might not be celebrated in any other place: but the Encaenia was kept everywhere throughout the whole land.   

They once proclaimed a fast within the feast of Dedication at Lydda.   

The feast of Dedication at Lydda? This was not uncustomary, for that feast was celebrated in any place: but the fast in the time of that feast, this was uncustomary.   

"One upon his journey, upon whose account they set up a candle at his own house, hath no need to light it for himself in the place where he sojourneth": for in what country soever he sojourns, there the feast of Dedication and lighting up of candles is observed; and if those of his own household would be doing that office for him, he is bound to make provision accordingly, and take care that they may do it.   

Maimonides goes on; "The precept about the lights in the feast of Dedication is very commendable; and it is necessary that every one should rub up his memory in this matter, that he may make known the great miracle, and contribute towards the praises of God, and the acknowledgment of those wonders he doth amongst us. If any one hath not wherewithal to eat, unless of mere alms, let him beg, or sell his garments to buy oil and lights for this feast. If he have only one single farthing; and should be in suspense whether he should spend it in consecrating the day; or setting up lights, let him rather spend it in oil for the candles than in wine for consecration of the day. For when as they are both the prescription of the scribes, it were better to give the lights of the Encaenia the preference, because you therein keep up the remembrance of the miracle."   

Now what was this miracle? It was the multiplication of the oil. The feast was instituted in commemoration of their Temple and religion being restored to them: the continuance of the feast for eight days was instituted in commemoration of that miracle: both by the direction of the scribes, when there was not so much as one prophet throughout the whole land.   

"There were eighty-five elders, above thirty of which were prophets too, that made their exceptions against the feast of Purim, ordained by Esther and Mordecai, as some kind of innovation against the law." And yet that feast was but to be of two days' continuance. It is a wonder then how this feast of Dedication; the solemnity of which was to be kept up for eight days together, that had no other foundation of authority but that of the scribes, should be so easily swallowed by them.   

Josephus, as also the Book of Maccabees, tells us, that this was done about the hundred and forty-eighth year of the Seleucidae: and at that time, nay, a great while before, the doctrine of traditions and authority of the traditional scribes had got a mighty sway in that nation. So that every decree of the Sanhedrim was received as oracular, nor was there any the least grudge or complaint against it. So that, though the traditional masters could not vindicate the institution of such a feast from any tradition exhibited to Moses upon mount Sinai, yet might they invent something as traditional to prove the lawfulness of such an institution.   

Who had the presidency in the Sanhedrim at this time cannot be certainly determined. That which is told of Joshua Ben Perachiah, how he fled from Janneus the king, carries some probability along with it, that Joses Ben Joezer of Zeredai, and Joses Ben Jochanan of Jerusalem, to whom Joshua Ben Perachiah and Nittai the Arbelite succeeded in their chairs, sat president and vice-president at that time in the Sanhedrim. But this is not of much weight, that we should tire ourselves in such an inquiry.   

The masters tell us (but upon what authority it is obscure), that the work of the tabernacle was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Chisleu (that is, the very day of the month of which we are now speaking); "but it was folded up till the first day of the month Nisan, and then set up."   

[And it was winter.] The eight days begun from the 25th of the month Chisleu fell in with the winter solstice. Whence, meeting with that in the Targumist upon 1Ch 11:22; I question whether I should render it the shortest day; or a short day (i.e. One of the short winter days), viz. the tenth of the month Tebeth; if he did not calculate rather according to our than the Jewish calendar.   

The Rabbins (as we have already observed upon Joh 5:35) distinguish their winter months into winter and mid-winter; intimating, as it should seem, the more remiss and more intense cold. Half Chisleu, all Tebeth, and half Shebat was the winter. Ten days therefore of the winter had passed when on the 25th of the month Chisleu the feast of the Dedication came in.   

It was winter, and Jesus walked in the porch. He walked there because it was winter; that he might get and keep himself warm: and perhaps he chose Solomon's porch to walk in, either that he might have something to do with the fathers of the Sanhedrim who sat there; or else that he might correct and chastise the buyers and sellers who had their shops in that place.

Gill: Joh 10:22

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,.... That is, of the temple; not as built by Solomon, as Nonnus in his paraphrase suggests; or as rebuilt by Zerubabel, for there were no annual feasts appointed in commemoration of either of these; and besides, they were neither of them in the winter time; the dedication of Solomon's temple was in autumn, at the feast of tabernacles, about September, 1Ki 8:2; and the dedication of the house in Zorobabel's time, was in the spring, about February, Ezr 6:15; but this was the feast of dedication, appointed by Judas Maccabaeus and his brethren, on account of the purging the temple, and renewing the altar, after the profanation of them by Antiochus; which feast lasted eight days, and began on the twenty fifth of the month Cisleu, which answers to part of our December; see the Apocrypha:

"52 Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning, 56 And so they kept the dedication of the altar eight days and offered burnt offerings with gladness, and sacrificed the sacrifice of deliverance and praise. 59 Moreover Judas and his brethren with the whole congregation of Israel ordained, that the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year by the space of eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, with mirth and gladness.'' (1 Maccabees 4)

"5 Now upon the same day that the strangers profaned the temple, on the very same day it was cleansed again, even the five and twentieth day of the same month, which is Casleu. 8 They ordained also by a common statute and decree, That every year those days should be kept of the whole nation of the Jews.'' (2 Maccabees 10:8)

with which the Jewish writers agree ^a: the account Maimonides gives ^b of it is this;

"when the Israelites prevailed over their enemies and destroyed them, it was on the twenty fifth of the month Chisleu; and they went into the temple and could not find any pure oil in the sanctuary, but one vial; and it was not enough to light but one day only, and they lighted lamps of it for eight days, until the olives were squeezed, and they brought forth pure oil: wherefore the wise men of that generation ordered, that those eight days beginning at the twenty fifth of Chisleu, should be days of rejoicing and praise, and they lighted lamps at the doors of their houses; every night of these eight nights, to show and make known the miracle; and these days are called חנוכה "the dedication"; and they are forbidden mourning and fasting, as the days of "purim"; and the lighting of the lamps on them, is a commandment from the Scribes, as is the reading of the book of Esther. How many lamps do they light at the feast of the dedication? the order is, that every house should light one lamp, whether the men of the house be many, or whether there is but one man in it; but he that honours the command, lights up lamps according to the number of the men of the house, a lamp for everyone, whether men or women; and he that honours it more, lights up a lamp for every man the first night, and adds as he goes, every night a lamp; for instance, if there be ten men in the house, the first night he lights up ten lamps, and on the second night twenty, and on the third night thirty; until he comes to the eighth night, when he lights up fourscore lamps.''

Wherefore, as Josephus says ^c, this feast was called φωτα, "lights"; though he seems to assign another reason of its name, because that prosperity and happiness appeared to them beyond hope, and unexpected: and though this was only an order of Judas and his brethren, and the congregation of Israel, yet the Jews observe it as religiously, as if it was the appointment of God himself, and they do not spare to call it so; for in the service of this feast, they have these words ^d;

"blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who hath sanctified us by his commandments, and hath "commanded" us to light the lamp of the dedication; blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who did wonders for our fathers on those days, at this time; blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who has kept us alive, and preserved us, and brought us to this time; these lamps we light, because of the wonders and marvellous things, and salvations, and wars, thou hast wrought for our fathers on those days at this time, by the hand of thine holy priests.--These lamps are holy, we have no power to use them, but only to behold them, so as to confess and praise thy great name, for thy miracles, and for thy wonders, and for thy salvations.''

And though this feast is said to be at Jerusalem, yet it was not confined there, as were the other feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, for this might be kept in any part of the land: mention is made of the feast of dedication at Lydda ^e, and in other countries; Maimonides ^f says

"it is a common custom in all our cities in Spain, that all the men of the house light up a lamp the first night, and add as they go along, a lamp every night, till he lights up on the eighth night eight lamps, whether the men of the house be many, or there be but one man.''

Some have been of opinion, that this feast of dedication was on the account of the victory Judith gained over Holophernes, by cutting off his head; or however, that the commemoration of that victory was a part of this festival: in the Vulgate Latin edition of Judith 16:31 it is said,

"the day of the festivity of this victory is received by the Hebrews into the number of holy days; and is kept by the Jews from that time, to the present day.''

And Sigonius ^g asserts, that it is celebrated by the Jews on the twenty fifth day of the month Chisleu; which is the same day the feast began, that was instituted by Judas Maccabaeus, on the above account; and certain it is, that the Jews do make mention of that fact of hers, in the service for the first sabbath of this feast ^h; and some of their writers would have this fact to be in the times of the Maccabees, though as one of their chronologers ⁱ observes, it appears from the history of Judith, to have been in the times of Nebuchadnezzar; and there are some that say it was in the times of Cambyses, son of Cyrus, king of Persia, and was two or three hundred years before the miracle of the dedication: but he serves, that the wise men of that age agreed to comprehend the memorial of that wonderful event, with the miracle of the dedication: and so R. Leo Modena ^k says,

"they have a tradition, that in ordaining this feast to be kept, they had an eve also upon that famous exploit performed by Judith upon Holophernes; although many are of opinion, that this happened not at this time of the year; and that they make a commemoration of that piece of gallantry of hers now, because she was of the stock of the Maccabees.''

But that cannot be, since she must be some hundreds of years before them; wherefore others make mention of another Judith, a daughter of one of the Maccabees, who performed a like exploit upon Nicanor, a general of Demetrius's army: to which R. Gedaliah has respect, when he says ^l,

"the wise men agreed to comprehend together in the joy of the feast of dedication, the affair of Judith, seeing there was another Judith, from her that killed Holophernes, a daughter of the Maccabees.''

But it is not clear that there was any such woman, nor that Nicanor was slain by one; and besides, he was killed on the thirteenth of Adar, and that day was ordained to be kept yearly on that account, in the Apocrypha:

"43 So the thirteenth day of the month Adar the hosts joined battle: but Nicanor's host was discomfited, and he himself was first slain in the battle. 49 Moreover they ordained to keep yearly this day, being the thirteenth of Adar.'' (1 Maccabees 7)

"And they ordained all with a common decree in no case to let that day pass without solemnity, but to celebrate the thirtieth day of the twelfth month, which in the Syrian tongue is called Adar, the day before Mardocheus' day.'' (2 Maccabees 15:36)

and the month of Adar answers to part of February.

And it was winter; for the month Chisleu answers to our November and December; so that the twenty fifth of that month might be about the tenth of December, and the Jews reckon part of that month winter, and it must be the part in which this feast was; they say ^m,

"half Chisleu, Tebeth, and half Shebet, are חורף, "winter":''

so that the evangelist might with propriety say, according to the sense of the Jewish nation, that it was winter; though it was but just entered, even not more than ten days: the reason why this is observed, may be for what follows.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Joh 10:22

¹ tn That is, Hanukkah or the ‘Festival of Lights.’ The Greek name for the feast, τὰ ἐγκαίνια (ta enkainia), literally means “renewal” and was used to translate Hanukkah which means “dedication.” The Greek noun, with its related verbs, was the standard term used in the LXX for the consecration of the altar of the Tabernacle (Num 7:10-11), the altar of the temple of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5), and the altar of the second temple (Ezra 6:16). The word is thus connected with the consecration of all the houses of God in the history of the nation of Israel.

sn The feast of the Dedication (also known as Hanukkah) was a feast celebrating annually the Maccabean victories of 165-164 b.c. – when Judas Maccabeus drove out the Syrians, rebuilt the altar, and rededicated the temple on 25 Kislev (1 Macc 4:41-61). From a historical standpoint, it was the last great deliverance the Jewish people had experienced, and it came at a time when least expected. Josephus ends his account of the institution of the festival with the following statement: “And from that time to the present we observe this festival, which we call the festival of Lights, giving this name to it, I think, from the fact that the right to worship appeared to us at a time when we hardly dared hope for it” (Ant. 12.7.6 [12.325]).

² map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

Geneva Bible: Joh 10:22

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the ^{( h )} dedication, and it was winter.

^{( h )} The feast of the dedication was instituted by Judas Maccabeus and his brethren after the restoring of God's true religion, by the casting out of Antiochus' garrison.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Joh 10:1-42

1 Christ is the door, and the good shepherd.

19 Divers opinions of him.

23 He proves by his works that he is Christ the Son of God;

31 escapes the Jews;

39 and goes again beyond Jordan, where many believe on him.

MHCC: Joh 10:22-30

All who have any thing to say to Christ, may find him in the temple. Christ would make us to believe; we make ourselves doubt. The Jews understood his meaning, but could not form his words into a full charge against him. He described the gracious disposition and happy state of his sheep; they heard and believed his word, followed him as his faithful disciples, and none of them should perish; for the Son and the Father were one. Thus he was able to defend his sheep against all their enemies, which proves that he claimed Divine power and perfection equally with the Father.

Matthew Henry: Joh 10:22-38

We have here another rencounter between Christ and the Jews in the temple, in which it is hard to say which is more strange, the gracious words that came out of his mouth or the spiteful ones that came out of theirs.

I. We have here the time when this conference was: It was at the feast of dedication, and it was winter, a feast that was annually observed by consent, in remembrance of the dedication of a new altar and the purging of the temple, by Judas Maccabaeus, after the temple had been profaned and the altar defiled; we have the story of it at large in the history of the Maccabees (lib. 1, cap. 4); we have the prophecy of it, Dan 8:13, Dan 8:14. See more of the feast, 2 Macc. 1:18. The return of their liberty was to them as life from the dead, and, in remembrance of it, they kept an annual feast on the twenty-fifth day of the month Cisleu, about the beginning of December, and seven days after. The celebrating of it was not confined to Jerusalem, as that of the divine feasts was, but every one observed it in his own place, not as a holy time (it is only a divine institution that can sanctify a day), but as a good time, as the days of Purim, Est 9:19. Christ forecasted to be now at Jerusalem, not in honour of the feast, which did not require his attendance there, but that he might improve those eight days of vacation for good purposes.

II. The place where it was (Joh 10:23): Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch; so called (Act 3:11), not because built by Solomon, but because built in the same place with that which had borne his name in the first temple, and the name was kept up for the greater reputation of it. Here Christ walked, to observe the proceedings of the great sanhedrim that sat here (Psa 82:1); he walked, ready to give audience to any that should apply to him, and to offer them his services. He walked, as it should seem, for some time alone, as one neglected; walked pensive, in the foresight of the ruin of the temple. Those that have any thing to say to Christ may find him in the temple and walk with him there.

III. The conference itself, in which observe,

1. A weighty question put to him by the Jews, Joh 10:24. They came round about him, to tease him; he was waiting for an opportunity to do them a kindness, and they took the opportunity to do him a mischief. Ill-will for good-will is no rare and uncommon return. He could not enjoy himself, no, not in the temple, his Father's house, without disturbance. They came about him, as it were, to lay siege to him: encompassed him about like bees. They came about him as if they had a joint and unanimous desire to be satisfied; came as one man, pretending an impartial and importunate enquiry after truth, but intending a general assault upon our Lord Jesus; and they seemed to speak the sense of their nation, as if they were the mouth of all the Jews: How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ tell us.

(1.) They quarrel with him, as if he had unfairly held them in suspense hitherto. Tēn psuchēn hēmōn aireis - How long dost thou steal away our hearts? Or, take away our souls? So some read it; basely intimating that what share he had of the people's love and respect he did not obtain fairly, but by indirect methods, as Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel; and as seducers deceive the hearts of the simple, and so draw away disciples after them, Rom 16:18; Act 20:30. But most interpreters understand it as we do: " How long dost thou keep us in suspense? How long are we kept debating whether thou be the Christ or no, and not able to determine the question?"Now, [1.] It was the effect of their infidelity, and powerful prejudices, that after our Lord Jesus had so fully proved himself to be the Christ they were still in doubt concerning it; this they willingly hesitated about, when they might easily have been satisfied. The struggle was between their convictions, which told them he was Christ, and their corruptions, which said, No, because he was not such a Christ as they expected. Those who choose to be sceptics may, if they please, hold the balance so that the most cogent arguments may not weigh down the most trifling objections, but scales may still hang even. [2.] It was an instance of their impudence and presumption that they laid the blame of their doubting upon Christ himself, as if he made them to doubt by inconsistency with himself, whereas in truth they made themselves doubt by indulging their prejudices. If Wisdom's sayings appear doubtful, the fault is not in the object, but in the eye; they are all plain to him that understands. Christ would make us to believe; we make ourselves to doubt.

(2.) They challenge him to give a direct and categorical answer whether he was the Messiah or no: " If thou be the Christ, as many believe thou art, tell us plainly, not by parables, as, I am the light of the world, and the good Shepherd, and the like, but totidem verbis - in so many words, either that thou art the Christ, or, as John Baptist, that thou art not,"Joh 1:20. Now this pressing query of theirs was seemingly good; they pretended to be desirous to know the truth, as if they were ready to embrace it; but it was really bad, and put with an ill design; for, if he should tell them plainly that he was the Christ, there needed no more to make him obnoxious to the jealousy and severity of the Roman government. Every one knew the Messiah was to be a king, and therefore whoever pretended to be the Messiah would be prosecuted as a traitor, which was the thing they would have been at; for, let him tell them ever so plainly that he was the Christ, they would have this to say presently, Thou bearest witness of thyself, as they had said, Joh 8:13.

2. Christ's answer to this question, in which,

(1.) He justifies himself as not at all accessary to their infidelity and skepticism, referring them, [1.] To what he had said: I have told you. He had told them that he was the Son of God, the Son of man, that he had life in himself, that he had authority to execute judgment, etc. And is not this the Christ then? These things he had told them, and they believed not; why then should they be told them again, merely to gratify their curiosity? You believed not. They pretended that they only doubted, but Christ tells them that they did not believe. Skepticism in religion is no better than downright infidelity. It is now for us to teach God how he should teach us, nor prescribe to him how plainly he should tell us his mind, but to be thankful for divine revelation as we have it. If we do not believe this, neither should we be persuaded if it were ever so much adapted to our humour. [2.] He refers them to his works, to the example of his life, which was not only perfectly pure, but highly beneficent, and of a piece with his doctrine; and especially to his miracles, which he wrought for the confirmation of his doctrine. It was certain that no man could do those miracles except God were with him, and God would not be with him to attest a forgery.

(2.) He condemns them for their obstinate unbelief, notwithstanding all the most plain and powerful arguments used to convince them: " You believed not; and again, You believed not. You still are what you always were, obstinate in your unbelief."But the reason he gives is very surprising: " You believed not, because you are not of my sheep: you believe not in me, because you belong not to me."[1.] "You are not disposed to be my followers, are not of a tractable teachable temper, have no inclination to receive the doctrine and law of the Messiah; you will not herd yourselves with my sheep, will not come and see, come and hear my voice."Rooted antipathies to the gospel of Christ are the bonds of iniquity and infidelity. [2.] "You are not designed to be my followers; you are not of those that were given me by my Father, to be brought to grace and glory. You are not of the number of the elect; and your unbelief, if you persist in it, will be a certain evidence that you are not."Note, Those to whom God never gives the grace of faith were never designed for heaven and happiness. What Solomon saith of immorality is true of infidelity, It is a deep ditch, and he that is abhorred of the Lord shall fall therein, Pro 22:14. Non esse electum, non est causa incredulitatis propriè dicta, sed causa per accidens. Fides autem est donum Dei et effectus praedestinationis - The not being included among the elect is not the proper cause of infidelity, but merely the accidental cause. But faith is the gift of God, and the effect of predestination. So Jansenius distinguishes well here.

(3.) He takes this occasion to describe both the gracious disposition and the happy state of those that are his sheep; for such there are, though they be not.

[1.] To convince them that they were not his sheep, he tells them what were the characters of his sheep. First, They hear his voice (Joh 10:27), for they know it to be his (Joh 10:4), and he has undertaken that they shall hear it, Joh 10:16. They discern it, It is the voice of my beloved, Son 2:8. They delight in it, are in their element when they are sitting at his feet to hear his word. They do according to it, and make his word their rule. Christ will not account those his sheep that are deaf to his calls, deaf to his charms, Psa 58:5. Secondly, They follow him; they submit to his guidance by a willing obedience to all his commands, and a cheerful conformity to his spirit and pattern. The word of command has always been, Follow me. We must eye him as our leader and captain, and tread in his steps, and walk as he walked - follow the prescriptions of his word, the intimations of his providence, and the directions of his Spirit - follow the Lamb (the dux gregis - the leader of the flock ) whithersoever he goes. In vain do we hear his voice if we do not follow him.

[2.] To convince them that it was their great unhappiness and misery not to be of Christ's sheep, he here describes the blessed state and case of those that are, which would likewise serve for the support and comfort of his poor despised followers, and keep them from envying the power and grandeur of those that were not of his sheep.

First, Our Lord Jesus takes cognizance of his sheep: They hear my voice, and I know them. He distinguishes them from others (2Ti 2:19), has a particular regard to every individual (Psa 34:6); he knows their wants and desires, knows their souls in adversity, where to find them, and what to do for them. He knows others afar off, but knows them near at hand.

Secondly, He has provided a happiness for them, suited to them: I give unto them eternal life, Joh 10:28. 1. The estate settled upon them is rich and valuable; it is life, eternal life. Man has a living soul; therefore the happiness provided is life, suited to his nature. Man has an immortal soul: therefore the happiness provided is eternal life, running parallel with his duration. Life eternal is the felicity and chief good of a soul immortal. 2. The manner of conveyance is free: I give it to them; it is not bargained and sold upon a valuable consideration, but given by the free grace of Jesus Christ. The donor has power to give it. He who is the fountain of life, and Father of eternity, has authorized Christ to give eternal life, Joh 17:2. Not I will give it, but I do give it; it is a present gift. He gives the assurance of it, the pledge and earnest of it, the first-fruits and foretastes of it, that spiritual life which is eternal life begun, heaven in the seed, in the bud, in the embryo.

Thirdly, He has undertaken for their security and preservation to this happiness.

a. They shall be saved from everlasting perdition. They shall by no means perish for ever; so the words are. As there is an eternal life, so there is an eternal destruction; the soul not annihilated, but ruined; its being continued, but its comfort and happiness irrecoverably lost. All believers are saved from this; whatever cross they may come under, they shall not come into condemnation. A man is never undone till he is in hell, and they shall not go down to that. Shepherds that have large flocks often lose some of the sheep and suffer them to perish; but Christ has engaged that none of his sheep shall perish, not one.

b. They cannot be kept from their everlasting happiness; it is in reserve, but he that gives it to them will preserve them to it. ( a. ) His own power is engaged for them: Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. A mighty contest is here supposed about these sheep. The Shepherd is so careful of their welfare that he has them not only within his fold, and under his eye, but in his hand, interested in his special love and taken under his special protection ( all his saints are in thy hand, Deu 33:3); yet their enemies are so daring that they attempt to pluck them out of his hand - his whose own they are, whose care they are; but they cannot, they shall not, do it. Note, Those are safe who are in the hands of the Lord Jesus. The saints are preserved in Christ Jesus: and their salvation is not in their own keeping, but in the keeping of a Mediator. The Pharisees and rulers did all they could to frighten the disciples of Christ from following him, reproving and threatening them, but Christ saith that they shall not prevail. ( b. ) His Father's power is likewise engaged for their preservation, Joh 10:29. He now appeared in weakness, and, lest his security should therefore be thought insufficient, he brings in his Father as a further security. Observe, [ a. ] The power of the Father: My Father is greater than all; greater than all the other friends of the church, all the other shepherds, magistrates or ministers, and able to do that for them which they cannot do. Those shepherds slumber and sleep, and it will be easy to pluck the sheep out of their hands; but he keeps his flock day and night. He is greater than all the enemies of the church, all the opposition given to her interests, and able to secure his own against all their insults; he is greater than all the combined force of hell and earth. He is greater in wisdom than the old serpent, though noted for subtlety; greater in strength than the great red dragon, though his name be legion, and his title principalities and powers. The devil and his angels have had many a push, many a pluck for the mastery, but have never yet prevailed, Rev 12:7, Rev 12:8. The Lord on high is mightier. [ b. ] The interest of the Father in the sheep, for the sake of which this power is engaged for them: "It is my Father that gave them to me, and he is concerned in honour to uphold his gift."They were given to the Son as a trust to be managed by him, and therefore God will still look after them. All the divine power is engaged for the accomplishment of all the divine counsels. [ c. ] The safety of the saints inferred from these two. If this be so, then none (neither man nor devil) is able to pluck them out of the Father's hand, not able to deprive them of the grace they have, nor to hinder them from the glory that is designed them; not able to put them out of God's protection, nor get them into their own power. Christ had himself experienced the power of his Father upholding and strengthening him, and therefore puts all his followers into his hand too. He that secured the glory of the Redeemer will secure the glory of the redeemed. Further to corroborate the security, that the sheep of Christ may have strong consolation, he asserts the union of these two undertakers: " I and my Father are one, and have jointly and severally undertaken for the protection of the saints and their perfection."This denotes more than the harmony, and consent, and good understanding, that were between the Father and the Son in the work of man's redemption. Every good man is so far one with God as to concur with him; therefore it must be meant of the oneness of the nature of Father and Son, that they are the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. The fathers urged this both against the Sabellians, to prove the distinction and plurality of the persons, that the Father and the Son are two, and against the Arians, to prove the unity of the nature, that these two are one. If we should altogether hold our peace concerning this sense of the words, even the stones which the Jews took up to cast at him would speak it out, for the Jews understood him as hereby making himself God (Joh 10:33) and he did not deny it. He proves that none could pluck them out of his hand because they could not pluck them out of the Father's hand, which had not been a conclusive argument if the Son had not had the same almighty power with the Father, and consequently been one with him in essence and operation.

IV. The rage, the outrage, of the Jews against him for this discourse: The Jews took up stones again, Joh 10:31. It is not the word that is used before (Joh 8:59), but ebastasan lithous - they carried stones - great stones, stones that were a load, such as they used in stoning malefactors. They brought them from some place at a distance, as it were preparing things for his execution without any judicial process; as if he were convicted of blasphemy upon the notorious evidence of the fact, which needed no further trial. The absurdity of this insult which the Jews offered to Christ will appear if we consider, 1. That they had imperiously, not to say impudently, challenged him to tell them plainly whether he was the Christ or no; and yet now that he not only said he was the Christ, but proved himself so, they condemned him as a malefactor. If the preachers of the truth propose it modestly, they are branded as cowards; if boldly, as insolent; but Wisdom is justified of her children. 2. That when they had before made a similar attempt it was in vain; he escaped through the midst of them (Joh 8:59); yet they repeat their baffled attempt. Daring sinners will throw stones at heaven, though they return upon their own heads; and will strengthen themselves against the Almighty, though none ever hardened themselves against him and prospered.

V. Christ's tender expostulation with them upon occasion of this outrage (Joh 10:32): Jesus answered what they did, for we do not find that they said any thing, unless perhaps they stirred up the crown that they had gathered about him to join with them, crying, Stone him, stone him, as afterwards, Crucify him, crucify him. When he could have answered them with fire from heaven, he mildly replied, Many good works have I shown you from my Father: for which of those works do you stone me? Words so very tender that one would think they should have melted a heart of stone. In dealing with his enemies he still argued from his works (men evidence what they are by what they do ), his good works - kala erga excellent, eminent works. Opera eximia vel praeclara ; the expression signifies both great works and good works.

1. The divine power of his works convicted them of the most obstinate infidelity. They were works from his Father, so far above the reach and course of nature as to prove him who did them sent of God, and acting by commission from him. These works he showed them; he did them openly before the people, and not in a corner. His works would bear the test, and refer themselves to the testimony of the most inquisitive and impartial spectators. He did not show his works by candle-light, as those that are concerned only for show, but he showed them at noon-day before the world, Joh 18:20. See Psa 111:6. His works so undeniably demonstrated that they were an incontestable demonstration of the validity of his commission.

2. The divine grace of his works convicted them of the most base ingratitude. The works he did among them were not only miracles, but mercies; not only works of wonder to amaze them, but works of love and kindness to do them good, and so make them good, and endear himself to them. He healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, cast out devils, which were favours, not only to the persons concerned, but to the public; these he had repeated, and multiplied: " Now for which of these do you stone me? You cannot say that I have done you any harm, or given you any just provocation; if therefore you will pick a quarrel with me, it must be for some good work, some good turn done you; tell me for which."Note, (1.) The horrid ingratitude that there is in our sins against God and Jesus Christ is a great aggravation of them, and makes them appear exceedingly sinful. See how God argues to this purpose, Deu 32:6, Jer 2:5; Mic 6:3. (2.) We must not think it strange if we meet with those who not only hate us without cause, but are our adversaries for our love, Psa 35:12; Psa 41:9. When he asks, For which of these do you stone me? as he intimates the abundant satisfaction he had in his own innocency, which gives a man courage in a suffering day, so he puts his persecutors upon considering what was the true reason of their enmity, and asking, as all those should do that create trouble to their neighbour, Why persecute we him? As Job advises his friends to do, Job 19:28.

VI. Their vindication of the attempt they made upon Christ, and the cause upon which they grounded their prosecution, Joh 10:33. What sin will want fig-leaves with which to cover itself, when even the bloody persecutors of the Son of God could find something to say for themselves?

1. They would not be thought such enemies to their country as to persecute him for a good work: For a good work we stone thee not. For indeed they would scarcely allow any of his works to be so. His curing the impotent man (ch. 5) and the blind man (ch. 9) were so far from being acknowledged good services to the town, and meritorious, that they were put upon the score of his crimes, because done on the sabbath day. But, if he had done any good works, they would not own that they stoned him for them, though these were really the things that did most exasperate them, Joh 11:47. Thus, though most absurd, they could not be brought to own their absurdities.

2. They would be thought such friends to God and his glory as to prosecute him for blasphemy: Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Here is,

(1.) A pretended zeal for the law. They seem mightily concerned for the honour of the divine majesty, and to be seized with a religious horror at that which they imagined to be a reproach to it. A blasphemer was to be stoned, Lev 24:16. This law, they thought, did not only justify, but sanctify, what they attempted, as Act 26:9. Note, The vilest practices are often varnished with plausible pretences. As nothing is more courageous than a well-informed conscience, so nothing is more outrageous than a mistaken one. See Isa 66:5; Joh 16:2.

(2.) A real enmity to the gospel, on which they could not put a greater affront than by representing Christ as a blasphemer. It is no new thing for the worst of characters to be put upon the best of men, by those that resolve to give them the worst of treatment. [1.] The crime laid to his charge is blasphemy, speaking reproachfully and despitefully of God. God himself is out of the sinner's reach, and not capable of receiving any real injury; and therefore enmity to God spits its venom at his name, and so shows its ill-will. [2.] The proof of the crime: Thou, being a man, makest thyself God. As it is God's glory that he is God, which we rob him of when we make him altogether such a one as ourselves, so it is his glory that besides him there is no other, which we rob him of when we make ourselves, or any creature, altogether like him. Now, First, Thus far they were in the right, that what Christ said of himself amounted to this - that he was God, for he had said that he was one with the Father and that he would give eternal life; and Christ does not deny it, which he would have done if it had been a mistaken inference from his words. But, secondly, They were much mistaken when they looked upon him as a mere man, and that the Godhead he claimed was a usurpation, and of his own making. They thought it absurd and impious that such a one as he, who appeared in the fashion of a poor, mean, despicable man, should profess himself the Messiah, and entitle himself to the honours confessedly due to the Son of God. Note, 1. Those who say that Jesus is a mere man, and only a made God, as the Socinians say, do in effect charge him with blasphemy, but do effectually prove it upon themselves. 2. He who, being a man, a sinful man, makes himself a god as the Pope does, who claims divine powers and prerogatives, is unquestionably a blasphemer, and that antichrist.

VII. Christ's reply to their accusation of him (for such their vindication of themselves was), and his making good those claims which they imputed to him as blasphemous (Joh 10:34, etc.), where he proves himself to be no blasphemer, by two arguments: -

1. By an argument taken from God's word. He appeals to what was written in their law, that is, in the Old Testament; whoever opposes Christ, he is sure to have the scripture on his side. It is written (Psa 82:6), I have said, You are gods. It is an argument a minore ad majus - from the less to the greater. If they were gods, much more am I. Observe,

(1.) How he explains the text (Joh 10:35): He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken. The word of God's commission came to them, appointing them to their offices, as judges, and therefore they are called gods, Exo 22:28. To some the word of God came immediately, as to Moses; to others in the way of an instituted ordinance. Magistracy is a divine institution; and magistrates are God's delegates, and therefore the scripture calleth them gods; and we are sure that the scripture cannot be broken, or broken in upon, or found fault with. Every word of God is right; the very style and language of scripture are unexceptionable, and not to be corrected, Mat 5:18.

(2.) How he applies it. Thus much in general is easily inferred, that those were very rash and unreasonable who condemned Christ as a blasphemer, only for calling himself the Son of God, when yet they themselves called their rulers so, and therein the scripture warranted them. But the argument goes further (Joh 10:36): If magistrates were called Gods, because they were commissioned to administer justice in the nation, say you of him whom the Father hath sanctified, Thou blasphemest? We have here two things concerning the Lord Jesus: - [1.] The honour done him by the Father, which he justly glories in: He sanctified him, and sent him into the world. Magistrates were called the sons of God, though the word of God only came to them, and the spirit of government came upon them by measure, as upon Saul; but our Lord Jesus was himself the Word, and had the Spirit without measure. They were constituted for a particular country, city, or nation; but he was sent into the world, vested with a universal authority, as Lord of all. They were sent to, as persons at a distance; he was sent forth, as having been from eternity with God. The Father sanctified him, that is, designed him and set him apart to the office of Mediator, and qualified and fitted him for that office. Sanctifying him is the same with sealing him, Joh 6:27. Note, Whom the Father sends he sanctifies; whom he designs for holy purposes he prepares with holy principles and dispositions. The holy God will reward, and therefore will employ, none but such as he finds or makes holy. The Father's sanctifying and sending him is here vouched as a sufficient warrant for his calling himself the Son of God; for because he was a holy thing he was called the Son of God, Luk 1:35. See Rom 1:4. [2.] The dishonour done him by the Jews, which he justly complains of - that they impiously said of him, whom the Father had thus dignified, that he was a blasphemer, because he called himself the Son of God: " Say you of him so and so? Dare you say so? Dare you thus set your mouths against the heavens? Have you brow and brass enough to tell the God of truth that he lies, or to condemn him that is most just? Look me in the face, and say it if you can. What! say you of the Son of God that he is a blasphemer? "If devils, whom he came to condemn, had said so of him, it had not been so strange; but that men, whom he came to teach and save, should say so of him, be astonished, O heavens! at this. See what is the language of an obstinate unbelief; it does, in effect, call the holy Jesus a blasphemer. It is hard to say which is more to be wondered at, that men who breathe in God's air should yet speak such things, or that men who have spoken such things should still be suffered to breathe in God's air. The wickedness of man, and the patience of God, as it were, contend which shall be most wonderful.

2. By an argument taken from his own works, Joh 10:37, Joh 10:38. In the former he only answered the charge of blasphemy by an argument ad hominem - turning a man's own argument against himself; but he here makes out his own claims, and proves that he and the Father are one (Joh 10:37, Joh 10:38): If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Though he might justly have abandoned such blasphemous wretches as incurable, yet he vouchsafes to reason with them. Observe,

(1.) From what he argues - from his works, which he had often vouched as his credentials, and the proofs of his mission. As he proved himself sent of God by the divinity of his works, so we must prove ourselves allied to Christ by the Christianity of ours. [1.] The argument is very cogent; for the works he did were the works of his Father, which the Father only could do, and which could not be done in the ordinary course of nature, but only by the sovereign over-ruling power of the God of nature. Opera Deo propria - works peculiar to God, and Opera Deo Digna - works worthy of God - the works of a divine power. He that can dispense with the laws of nature, repeal, altar, and overrule them at his pleasure, by his own power, is certainly the sovereign prince who first instituted and enacted those laws. The miracles which the apostles wrought in his name, by his power, and for the confirmation of his doctrine, corroborated this argument, and continued the evidence of it when he was gone. [2.] It is proposed as fairly as can be desired, and put to a short issue. First, If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. He does not demand a blind and implicit faith, nor an assent to his divine mission further than he gave proof of it. He did not wind himself into the affections of the people, nor wheedle them by sly insinuations, nor impose upon their credulity by bold assertions, but with the greatest fairness imaginable quitted all demands of their faith, further than he produced warrants for these demands. Christ is no hard master, who expects to reap in assents where he has not sown in arguments. None shall perish for the disbelief of that which was not proposed to them with sufficient motives of credibility, Infinite Wisdom itself being judge. Secondly, "But if I do the works of my Father, if I work undeniable miracles for the confirmation of a holy doctrine, though you believe not me, though you are so scrupulous as not to take my word, yet believe the works: believe your own eyes, your own reason; the thing speaks itself plainly enough."As the invisible things of the Creator are clearly seen by his works of creation and common providence (Rom 1:20), so the invisible things of the Redeemer were seen by his miracles, and by all his works both of power and mercy; so that those who were not convinced by these works were without excuse.

(2.) For what he argues - that you may know and believe, may believe it intelligently, and with an entire satisfaction, that the Father is in me and I in him; which is the same with what he had said (Joh 10:30): I and my Father are one. The Father was so in the Son as that in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead, and it was by a divine power that he wrought his miracles; the Son was so in the Father as that he was perfectly acquainted with the whole of his mind, not by communication, but by consciousness, having lain in his bosom. This we must know; not know and explain (for we cannot by searching find it out to perfection), but know and believe it; acknowledging and adoring the depth, when we cannot find the bottom.

Barclay: Joh 10:22-28

John begins by giving us both the date and the place of this discussion. The date was the Festival of the Dedication. This was the latest of the great Jewish festivals to be founded. It was sometimes called The Festival of Lights; and its Jewish name was Hanukkah. Its date is the 25th of the Jewish month called Chislew which corresponds with our December. This Festival therefore falls very near our Christmas time and is still universally observed by the Jews.

The origin of the Festival of the Dedication lies in one of the greatest times of ordeal and heroism in Jewish history. There was a king of Syria called Antiochus Epiphanes who reigned from 175 to 164 B.C. He was a lover of all things Greek. He decided that he would eliminate the Jewish religion once and for all, and introduce Greek ways and thoughts, Greek religion and gods into Palestine. At first he tried to do so by peaceful penetration of ideas. Some of the Jews welcomed the new ways, but most were stubbornly loyal to their ancestral faith.

It was in 170 B.C. that the deluge really came. In that year Antiochus attacked Jerusalem. It was said that 80,000 Jews perished, and as many were sold into slavery. 1,800 talents--a talent is equal to 240 British pounds--were stolen from the Temple treasury. It became a capital offence to possess a copy of the law, or to circumcise a child; and mothers who did circumcise their children were crucified with their children hanging round their necks. The Temple courts were profaned; the Temple chambers were turned into brothels; and finally Antiochus took the dreadful step of turning the great altar of the burnt-offering into an altar to Olympian Zeus, and on it proceeded to offer swine's flesh to the pagan gods.

It was then that Judas Maccabaeus and his brother arose to fight their epic fight for freedom. In 164 B.C. the struggle was finally won; and in that year the Temple was cleansed and purified. The altar was rebuilt and the robes and the utensils were replaced, after three years of pollution. It was to commemorate that purification of the Temple that the Feast of the Dedication was instituted. Judas Maccabaeus enacted that "the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year, by the space of eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Chislew, with gladness and joy" (1Macc 4:59). For that reason the festival was sometimes called the Festival of the Dedication of the Altar, and sometimes the Memorial of the Purification of the Temple.

But as we have already seen, it had still another name. It was often called the Festival of Lights. There were great illuminations in the Temple; and there were also illuminations in every Jewish home. In the window of every Jewish house there were set lights. According to Shammai, eight lights were set in the window, and they were reduced each day by one until on the last day only one was left burning. According to Hillel, one light was kindled on the first day, and one was added each day until on the last day eight were burning. We can see these lights in the windows of every devout Jewish home to this day.

These lights had two significances. First, they were a reminder that at the first celebrating of the festival the light of freedom had come back to Israel. Second, they were traced back to a very old legend. It was told that when the Temple had been purified and the great seven branched candlestick re-lit, only one little cruse of unpolluted oil could be found. This cruse was still intact, and still sealed with the impress of the ring of the High Priest. By all normal measures, there was only oil enough in that cruse to light the lamps for one single day. But by a miracle it lasted for eight days, until new oil had been prepared according to the correct formula and had been consecrated for its sacred use. So for eight days the lights burned in the Temple and in the homes of the people in memory of the cruse which God had made to last for eight days instead of one.

It is not without significance that it must have been very close to this time of illumination that Jesus said: "I am the Light of the world." When all the lights were being kindled in memory of the freedom won to worship God in the true way, Jesus said: "I am the Light of the world; I alone can light men into the knowledge and the presence of God."

John also gives us the place of this discussion, Solomon's Porch. The first court in the Temple precincts was the Court of the Gentiles. Along two sides of it ran two magnificent colonnades called the Royal Porch and Solomon's Porch. They were rows of magnificent pillars, almost forty feet high and roofed over. People walked there to pray and meditate; and Rabbis strolled there as they talked to their students and expounded the doctrines of the faith. It was there that Jesus was walking, because, as John says with a pictorial touch, "it was wintry weather."

Barclay: Joh 10:22-28

As Jesus walked in Solomon's Porch the Jews came to him. "How long," they said to him, "are you going to keep us in suspense? Tell us plainly, are you or are you not God's promised Anointed One?" There is no doubt that behind that question were two attitudes of mind. There were those who genuinely wished to know. They were on an eager tip-toe of expectation. But there were others who beyond a doubt asked the question as a trap. They wished to inveigle Jesus into making a statement which could be twisted either into a charge of blasphemy with which their own courts could deal or a charge of insurrection with which the Roman governor would deal.

Jesus' answer was that he had already told them who he was. True, he had not done so in so many words; for, as John tells the story, Jesus' two great claims had been made in private. To the Samaritan woman he had revealed himself as the Messiah (Joh 4:26) and to the man born blind he had claimed to be the Son of God (Joh 9:37). But there are some claims which do not need to be made in words, especially to an audience well-qualified to perceive them. There were two things about Jesus which placed his claim beyond all doubt whether he stated it in words or not. First, there were his deeds. It was Isaiah's dream of the golden age: "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy" (Isa 35:5-6). Every one of Jesus' miracles was a claim that the Messiah had come. Second, there were his words. Moses had forecast that God would raise up the Prophet who must be listened to (Deu 18:15). The very accent of authority with which Jesus spoke, the way in which he regally abrogated the old law and put his own teaching in its place, was a claim that God was speaking in him. The words and deeds of Jesus were a continuous claim to be the Anointed One of God.

But the great majority of the Jews had not accepted that claim. As we have seen in Palestine the sheep knew their own shepherd's special call and answered it; these were not of Jesus' flock. In the fourth gospel there is behind it all a doctrine of predestination, things were happening all the time as God meant them to happen. John is really saying that these Jews were predestined not to follow Jesus. Somehow or other the whole New Testament keeps two opposite ideas in balance--the fact that everything happens within the purpose of God and yet in such a way that man's free-will is responsible. These had made themselves such that they were predestined not to accept Jesus; and yet, as John sees it, that does not make them any the less to be condemned.

But though most did not accept Jesus, some did; and to them Jesus promised three things.

(i) He promised eternal life. He promised that if they accepted him as Master and Lord, if they became members of his flock, all the littleness of earthly life would be gone and they would know the splendour and the magnificence of the life of God.

(ii) He promised a life that would know no end. Death would not be the end but the beginning; they would know the glory of indestructible life.

(iii) He promised a life that was secure. Nothing could snatch them from his hand. This would not mean that they would be saved from sorrow, from suffering and from death; but that in the sorest moment and the darkest hour they would still be conscious of the everlasting arms underneath and about them. Even in a world crashing to disaster they would know the serenity of God.

Constable: Joh 1:19--13:1

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19--12:50

The first part of the body of John's Gospel records Jesus' public ministry to the multitudes in Palestine who were primarily Jewish. Some writers have called this section of the Gospel "the book of signs" because it features seven miracles that signify various things about Jesus.

"Signs are miraculous works performed or mentioned to illustrate spiritual principles."⁶⁹

Often John recorded a lengthy discourse that followed the miracle, in which Jesus explained its significance to the crowds. This section also contains two extended conversations that Jesus had with two individuals (chs. 3 and 4).

"The opening of the narrative proper might well be understood as the account of the happenings of one momentous week. John does not stress the point, but he does give notes of time that seem to indicate this. The first day is taken up with a deputation from Jerusalem that interrogates the Baptist. The next day' we have John's public pointing out of Jesus (vv. 29-34). Day 3 tells of two disciples of the Baptist who followed Jesus (vv. 35-40). It seems probable that verse 41 takes us to day 4 . . . It tells of Andrew's bringing of Peter to Jesus. Day 5 is the day when Philip and Nathanael come to him (vv. 43-51). The marriage in Cana is two days after the previous incident (i.e., the sixth and seventh days, 2:1-11). If we are correct in thus seeing the happenings of one momentous week set forth at the beginning of this Gospel, we must go on to ask what significance is attached to this beginning. The parallel with the days of creation in Genesis 1 suggests itself, and is reinforced by the In the beginning' that opens both chapters. Just as the opening words of this chapter recall Genesis 1, so it is with the framework. Jesus is to engage in a new creation. The framework unobtrusively suggests creative activity."⁷⁰

Constable: Joh 7:10--11:1

H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:10-10:42

This section of the text describes Jesus' teaching in Jerusalem during the feast of Tabernacles and the feast of Dedication. John evidently included it in His narrative because it contains important revelations of Jesus' identity and explains the mounting opposition to Jesus that culminated in His crucifixion.

Constable: Joh 10:22-42

8. The confrontation at the feast of Dedication 10:22-42

The present section of the fourth Gospel is strongly Christological and focuses on Jesus' identity. In this subdivision of the text Jesus presented Himself as the Messiah (vv. 22-30) and as the Son of God (vv. 31-39). This resulted in the climax of hostility against Him.

"It becomes clear that people must either recognize that Jesus stands in such a relation to the Father as no one else ever did, or else reject him entirely."³⁶⁴

The final few verses are transitional and describe Jesus' withdrawal from Jerusalem and the fact that many people believed on Him (vv. 40-42).

Constable: Joh 10:22-30

Jesus' claim to be the Messiah 10:22-30

10:22-23 "At that time" (NASB) is a general reference to the proximity of the feast of Dedication and the events narrated in the previous pericope. It does not mean that the events in the preceding section occurred exactly before that feast. The NIV "Then came" gives the sense better.

The eight-day feast of Dedication, now called Chanukah (or Hanukkah), the feast of Lights, was not one of the feasts prescribed in the Mosaic Law. The Jews instituted it during the inter-testamental period (cf. 1 Macc. 4:36-59; 2 Macc. 1:9, 18; 10:1-8).

"Christ's testimony at Hanukkah, and its place in the Gospel of John, which stresses the theme of light, is a testimony to Christians that Hanukkah emphasizes His great work of providing salvation to a spiritually blind world."³⁶⁵

It commemorated the purification and rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus ("Judas the Hammer") on the 25th of Chislev (modern late December and early January), 164 B.C. The Syrian invader Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) had profaned the temple three years earlier by replacing the brazen altar with a pagan one on which he offered a pig as a sacrifice to Jupiter. Antiochus attempted to Hellenize Judea, but the Jewish patriot Judas Maccabeus was able to lead a guerilla revolt that has borne his name ever since. After three years he defeated the Syrians and liberated the Jews.

"It was the last great deliverance that the Jews had known, and therefore it must have been in people's minds a symbol of their hope that God would again deliver his people."³⁶⁶

In warmer weather Jesus would have taught in one of the open-air courtyards of the temple. Because it was winter He taught what follows in Solomon's colonnade on the temple courtyard's eastern side. Perhaps John mentioned this detail because it was in Solomon's colonnade that the first Christians gathered regularly (Acts 3:11; 5:12).

10:24 Jesus had often hinted at being the Messiah when He spoke publicly to the Jews. Still He had not plainly claimed to be the Messiah as He had when conversing with the Samaritan woman (4:26). The reason the Jews wanted Jesus to make His claim clear here appears to have been so they could accuse and eventually kill Him. This motivation is more apparent when we notice how Jesus responded to their request than it is when we examine what they said. Jesus did not give them the unambiguous answer that they requested. Jesus had made clear claims about His identity, and many of the Jews had believed on Him. It was His critics' determined unbelief that made His claims obscure to them, not His inability or unwillingness to reveal Himself. Furthermore for Jesus to have claimed to be the Jews' Messiah publicly would have encouraged a political movement that He did not want to stimulate.

10:25-26 Jesus did not mean that He had claimed publicly to be the Messiah. He had not. He meant that He had told the Jews that He was the Messiah by His works (cf. 5:16-47; 6:32-59; 7:14-30). His miracles proved who He was, namely God's Son sent to fulfill the Father's prophesied will, but the Jews generally rejected that testimony because they wanted a different type of Messiah. The ultimate reason they did not understand Jesus was that they were not of the sheep the Father had given to the Son (cf. vv. 1-18; 6:37). This condition did not excuse their unbelief, but it explained it.

"From the human standpoint, we become His sheep by believing; but from the divine standpoint, we believe because we are His sheep. . . .

"In the Bible, divine election and human responsibility are perfectly balanced; and what God has joined together, we must not put asunder."³⁶⁷

10:27-28 Verse 27 repeats revelation Jesus had previously given (vv. 3-5, 14). The eternal life that Jesus gives is His own life. Consequently it is impossible for His sheep ever to perish. Their ultimate security rests with the Good Shepherd who promised here that no one would be able to snatch them out of His hand--no thief (v. 10), no robber (v. 8), no wolf (v. 12), no one (cf. Rom. 8:35-39). The construction of the Greek clause "they shall never perish" (ou me apolontai eis ton aiona) stresses the impossibility strongly (cf. 3:16). Jesus had previously said that part of the task that the Father had given Him to do was to preserve all those whom the Father gave Him (6:37-40). Thus we can see that it is impossible even for one of the sheep to wriggle out of the Good Shepherd's grasp.

"We should notice that the teaching of this verse is not that believers will be saved from all earthly disaster, but that they will be saved, no matter what earthly disaster may befall them."³⁶⁸

This is one of the clearest promises of the eternal security of the believer that God has given us in His Word. It is also a clear statement of the fact that eternal life comes to us as a gift, not as wages (cf. Eph. 2:8-9).

10:29 Jesus heightened this promise of security. He reminded His hearers that because what He did was simply execute the Father's will it was the Father as well as Himself that would keep His sheep secure (cf. 17:12). No one can steal from God. No one has superior strength or wisdom to overpower or outwit Him (cf. Col. 3:3). No one will snatch them from God (v. 28), and no one can do so either.

10:30 Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form of the word translated "one" (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their action. This explanation also harmonized with the context since Jesus had said that He would keep His sheep safe (v. 28) and His Father would keep them safe (v. 29).

This verse has been at the center of serious discussions about Jesus' nature that have taken place over the centuries. Those who believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man (the orthodox) and those who believe that Jesus was not fully God (Arians) have appealed to it to support their positions. Therefore we need to look at it carefully.

First, Jesus' claim to oneness does not in itself prove the Son's unity in essence with the Father. In 17:22, Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one as He and the Father were one, namely in their purpose and beliefs. Second, other passages in the Gospel declare that the Father and the Son are one in more than just their purpose and beliefs (cf. 1, 18; 8:58; 12:41; 20:28). Third, the context of this verse also implies that Jesus did everything His Father did (cf. 5:19) and that Jesus and the Father united in fulfilling a divine will and a divine task. Fourth, this Gospel has consistently presented Jesus as a unique Son of God, not one of many sons. Fifth, 17:55 uses the Father Son unity as the basis for the disciple disciple unity in the analogy, not the other way around, implying that the former is the more fundamental unity.³⁶⁹

In short, this verse does not say that Jesus was claiming to be of the same essence as God. Here He claimed to function in union with the Father. However the context and other statements in this Gospel show that His unity with the Father extended beyond a functional unity and did involve essential metaphysical unity.

The Jews had asked Jesus for a plain statement about His messiahship. Jesus gave them far more, a claim that He fully and completely carried out the Father's will that strongly hinted at Jesus' deity. This statement is the climax of the preceding discussion (vv. 22-29; cf. 5:18; 8:59).

College: Joh 10:1-42

JOHN 10

6. The Feast of Dedication and the Shepherd Analogy (10:1-42)

There is no clear break between Jesus' words in 9:41 and 10:1, but this seems to be a new section with a new setting. In chapters 7-9 we were in Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles. At 10:22 we are clearly at the Feast of Dedication, about three months after Tabernacles. But there are at least two reasons that we may see a section break beginning at 10:1. First, the subject matter has changed radically, with the topic of Jesus as the Shepherd being found on both sides of 10:22. This is in contrast to the topic of Jesus as the Light of the world in chapter 9, although admittedly the blind man of chapter 9 is referred to in 10:21. Second, the beginning words of Jesus at 10:1 are ajmhÉn ajmhÉn (amçn amçn, " I tell you the truth" in NIV). These are often the opening words of a response by Jesus to a question or comment from his audience. Yet there is no corresponding audience remark here, suggesting that we are breaking in on such a scenario. While some may disagree, we will treat chapter 10 as a bridge unit of material set sometime between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication.

Jesus, the Sheepgate, and the Shepherd (10:1-21)

The age-old business of tending sheep would have been very familiar to most everyone in the ancient world. The key players in this extended metaphor are the shepherd (v. 2), who is the daily caretaker and perhaps the owner of the sheep; the sheep (v. 2), who are understood both individually and as a flock (v. 12); the watchman (v. 3), who opens the door for the legitimate shepherd; the thief (v. 1) , who illegitimately steals sheep; the hired hand (v. 12), who abandons the sheep at the first sign of danger; and the wolf (v. 12), who terrorizes and scatters the sheep. The primary setting is the sheep pen (v. 1), an enclosure for the nighttime safety of the animals with a single entrance or gate (v. 1).

Figures from Shepherd Life (10:1-6)

¹" I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. ² The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. ³ The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ⁴ When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. ⁵ But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." ⁶ Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

10:1. The sheep-herding analogy is introduced with the " anti-shepherd," the one who is a thief and robber . This one violates the safety of the sheep pen by stealth, climbing over the walls. It is not clear that Jesus has any individual or group in mind as the thief . The point seems to be more that there is only one legitimate way to enter, and that is through the gate (quvra, thyra , the word from which we get our English word " door" ). Presumably there is but a single entry to the sheep pen. One who attempts to enter by any other way has only the goal of " sheep-stealing" in the sense of taking sheep away through false, deceptive leadership.

10:2-3. In contrast to the thieves, the shepherd of the sheep enters by the gate/door. He is recognized by the watchman (qurwrov", thyrôros, literally a " doorkeeper" ). Such recognition comes about because he is the true shepherd and not some type of imposter. His legitimacy is further validated by the fact that the sheep listen to his voice . The relationship between the shepherd and his sheep is so deep and longstanding that he can call them by name . The depiction here is of a shepherd beginning the workday by gaining entrance through the night watchman and calling each of his beloved sheep by names he has given to them (Fuzzy? Wooly? Sparky?) . They respond to his summons, and he leads them out to their daily grazing area. The story pictures a community sheep pen where several flocks are housed together. During the night the sheep from various flocks may have intermingled. This shepherd does not separate his sheep by walking through the pen, but by standing at the gate and calling their names.

10:4-5. The pastoral scene is developed even further. Now the sheep are gathered outside the sheep pen and the shepherd leads them to pasture. An important detail here is the ancient practice of the shepherd leading his sheep rather than driving them.

10:6. John labels this speech as a paroimiva ( paroimia ), translated as figure of speech . In the book of John a paroimia is not just any type of figure of speech, it is a " concealed saying" with a hidden meaning requiring interpretation. John uses paroimia as the opposite of parrhsiva (parrçsia) which means to speak " plainly," or without figures of speech (cf. John 16:25, 29). To understand this as a " parable" is probably somewhat misleading. John never uses the Greek word for " parable" (parabolhv, parabolç); it is found only in the Synoptic Gospels. To be sure this is an allegorical saying and some of Jesus' parables are allegories (e.g., the Sower Parable), but the presentation is quite different here. Allegory " speaks of one thing in the guise of another." Jesus does not intend to rehearse farming techniques here, but to take standard shepherding practices and use them to illustrate his ministry.

The basic allegorical framework has been set up (shepherd = leader and protector, sheep = followers and dependents). Jesus goes on to expand and even modify the allegory because they did not understand what he was telling them .

Explaining the Figure (10:7-18)

Jesus is the Sheepgate (10:7-10)

⁷ Therefore Jesus said again, " I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. ⁸ All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. ⁹ I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. ^a He will come in and go out, and find pasture. ¹⁰ The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

^a 9 Or kept safe

10:7-9. Jesus begins unpacking the allegory by stating that he is the gate . This is the third great " I am + identifier" claim of Jesus in the book of John. He has claimed to be the " bread of life" (6:48). He has claimed to be the " light of the world" (8:12). Now he asserts " I am the gate for the sheep" (v. 7) and simply " I am the gate" (v. 8). As John Ashton has maintained, all of these " I am (something)" statements are " miniature Gospels." That is, these metaphorical descriptions of Jesus are all insights into his mission as the one who comes to give life to believing humankind (see v. 10, cf. 3:16, 20:31).

In this case the gate is not so much an armor-plated security door as it is a limited, unique entryway. Jesus says " whoever enters through me (the gate) will be saved." The important verb translated " save" is used relatively infrequently in John. Here it is a future passive form (swqhvsetai, sôthçsetai from the verb sw/vzw, sôzô). The future tense indicates a promise for Jesus' hearers and for John's readers. For a sheep " salvation" is characterized by the idyllic state of safe passage and ready pasture. For the believer " salvation" is to be under the perfect shepherding care of God, to trust him for every need. As elsewhere in John, Jesus is presented as the only true way to gain access to this matchless relationship with God.

The image of Jesus as the gate or door contributes to a controversial aspect of John's Gospel: the exclusive claims of the gospel. It is fashionable today to speak of many ways of accessing God. In our age of tolerance as a virtue, many want to say that all religious roads end up at the same place. Buddhism, Islam, Native American Spirituality, African Traditional Religions, Mormonism; all of these are spiritual journeys that sincere seekers may travel to find God. To think that one religion is superior to others smacks of the social error of intolerance. And to even suggest that one religion is true and others are false is narrow-minded bigotry that has no place in our postmodern ethic. Yet that is precisely what is going on here. Jesus is not just a new way or a better way to God. He is the gate , the only way to God (see comments with 14:6; cf. Acts 4:12). It is this truth that makes his statement the " Gospel in miniature."

10:10. As Jesus has already made clear, there are those who do not have the best interests of the flock at heart. These thieves come to steal and kill and destroy . Jesus, on the other hand, brings life and it is life to the full . The word translated to the full is perissov" ( perissos ), and is a rather straightforward comparative word. It is much better translated " abundant" or simply " more." What is this " more-life," though?

It is common to interpret abundant life as meaning that the Christian believer enjoys a superior life than that of the nonbeliever. Presumably this means the believer is happier, more content, and even more materially blessed than his nonbelieving neighbor is. This verse may be pushed to say that Christianity is not a life of self-denial, but of self-affirmation. The " abundant life" becomes a justification for a life of " Christian hedonism."

Yet such an interpretation would be in contradiction to both the experience of believers who have suffered horribly for their faith and for the general call to self-denial that is found elsewhere in the teaching of Jesus. A more correct meaning of perissos would see the " abundant life" as equivalent to the frequent expression in John, " eternal life." This life is abundant in the sense that it is inexhaustible. It never runs out. And it is never-ending because it comes from the eternal, inexhaustible God. Therefore it may be superior to the unbeliever's life in that it is full of hope and of the blessings of God. We have victory over sin because of the " super-abundance" of God's grace (Rom 5:20). There is a sense that living the God-directed life is akin to following the instruction manual rather than rebelliously making our own way. Eugene Peterson has aptly rendered this final phrase of verse 10 as " more and better life than they ever dreamed of."

Jesus is the Good (or Model) Shepherd (10:11-18)

¹¹" I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ¹² The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. ¹³ The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

¹⁴" I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - ¹⁵ just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. ¹⁶ I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ¹⁷ The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. ¹⁸ No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

10:11. Now we get the fourth great " I am (something)" claim of John's Gospel, " I am the good shepherd," repeated in verse 14. To be " good" in this sense is more than the opposite of " bad." The word translated good is kalov" ( kalos ), and has the connotation of " beautiful" or " lovely." In what sense, though, is Jesus the " beautiful shepherd" ? Raymond Brown and others have pointed out that for Greek speakers kalos referred to an ideal, perfect beauty. Thus Brown's translation is " I am the model shepherd." Jesus is describing himself as the ideal, model shepherd to whom other human shepherds should be compared. This text, then, certainly speaks to those called to " shepherd" the flock today.

The word translated shepherd is poimhvn (poimçn). To understand Jesus as the Great Shepherd (Heb 13:20) is a cherished image in the church, found in some of the earliest known Christian art in the Roman catacombs. The early church remembered Jesus as its shepherd (see Matt 9:36; 26:31; 1 Pet 2:25), and applied Old Testament passages to him that pictured God as shepherd (particularly Psalm 23). To be a shepherd or pastor is also a function of church leadership (poimçn is the word translated " pastor" in Ephesians 4:11), and John surely intends his readers to use the Jesus the Model Shepherd as a standard by which to evaluate their own leaders.

Jesus cuts to the chase with his description of what it takes to be the Good Shepherd. He lays down his life for the sheep, meaning he would be willing to die voluntarily for his sheep. On the lips of Jesus these words are prophetic of his coming crucifixion. For John's readers these words and the explanations that follow are also standards by which church leaders should evaluate themselves.

10:12-13. Jesus contrasts the model shepherd with the hired hand . The Greek word translated hired hand is misqwtov" (misthôtos), meaning " one who works for money." Such a person was neither a slave nor an owner, but only a casual laborer with no personal interest in the sheep. At the first sign of danger such a person runs away .

In some church traditions this condemnation of the " hireling" has been used as an argument against paying pastors or ministers. Yet surely this pushes the analogy far beyond Jesus' intention. No one would argue with the position that ministry motivated solely by money is unacceptable. Pastors should not be mercenaries for money, hired guns working for the highest bidder. And it is true that the church has always had some workers of independent means who did not need to be paid for their ministry, but this has been the exceptional situation, not the norm. To deny the validity of paid ministry does not square with other teachings in the New Testament (see Luke 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18). The church has a duty to adequately compensate those whom it employs in full-time ministry. Ministers may be called to suffer for the Gospel, but should this be economic suffering at the hands of the church that has called them to serve it?

Another character in this analogy is the wolf . The wolf has an important characteristic for this analogy. It kills and eats sheep, and they are defenseless against it. Because of this the wolf inspires fear among the sheep (and the hired hand), so when sheep see or smell a wolf coming they run in all directions. A reality of the church is that there will always be " wolves" (= nonbelievers) around who are not sheep. These wolves will prey upon the trust and innocence of Christians, and will seek to destroy the fellowship of the church by driving believers apart. The terrifying image of wolves in the sheep flock is used elsewhere as a metaphor for evil persons who come into the church with predatory motives rather than as fellow believers (Matt 7:15; Acts 20:29).

10:14-15. Jesus explains the shepherd/sheep illustration a little more with some additional insights. Just as a crucial dynamic in shepherding is that the sheep know and trust the shepherd, so it is with Jesus and his true disciples. The word translated know here is the common Greek verb ginwvskw (ginôskô). To " know" a person in this ginôskô sense means to have an intimate relationship built on experience. In the Gospel of John, those who refuse to know Jesus in this way are " of the world," and beyond salvation (see 1:10). But this is a two-way relationship, for Jesus' " knowledge" of his disciples (= commitment to them) is so great that he will die for them. This is a divine relationship patterned after the way Jesus' Father knows him (cf. 8:55).

10:16. In slightly cryptic fashion Jesus expands the sheep/shepherd analogy to portray the Good Shepherd as being something of a sheep baron. His business is bigger than it may seem, for he has more than one pen full of sheep. These other sheep are surely a reference to believers outside of the nation of Israel, the coming Gentile church. But ultimately there will be only one flock /church, for there is only one shepherd (cf. Eph 2:14-16). In the early church a primary cause for disunity was the Jew/Gentile division (see Acts 15). In the modern church we manage to find all kinds of things to divide the church, but the principle of Jesus still remains. In the end we are one flock because we have one shepherd (cf. Eph 4:3-6).

10:17-18. This is a deeply theological comment on the relationship between the Father and Jesus his Son. This relationship is characterized as love built on complete obedience (cf. Heb 5:8). Jesus willingly offers his life of his own accord . But the Father has cooperated in this mission by granting Jesus the necessary authority both to lay down his life (sacrificial death) and to take it up again (resurrection).

Are we left, then, with understanding that the relationship between Jesus and the Father is one of love earned by obedience, a type of merit theology? Surely not, for just as we cannot earn our salvation through works, it seems ridiculous to imagine that Jesus earns the Father's affection by his obedient deeds. There is something much deeper afoot here. Part of what Jesus is saying is that he does something God could not do without him. The immortal God cannot die, but the human Jesus can die for the sins of the world. Through Jesus God is able to do what he dearly wants to do: redeem his beloved children from sin. Jesus does this with his eyes fully open as to the dreadful personal cost, but also being aware of the commanded necessity of his sacrificial act.

Response to Jesus' Explanation: Rejection of Jesus by the Jews (10:19-21)

¹⁹ At these words the Jews were again divided. ²⁰ Many of them said, " He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

²¹ But others said, " These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

10:19. Ironically, while Jesus has just spoken of future unity between Jews and Gentiles, now there is a schism within his Jewish hearers. The polarization that Jesus' words seem to bring to his listeners has only become more intense.

10:20. The unbelievers issue another ad hominem attack. Don't listen to anything this man says because he is demon-possessed and raving mad . These two items were tied closely together for John's original readers. The accusation would have been particularly offensive to any self-respecting Jew in the ancient world. It is a description of a pagan prophet, one who has abandoned Judaism and converted to heathen practices. This is the man who has given over to a pagan god (the daimovnion, daimonion , cf. Acts 17:18). The result is that he speaks madly (from the verb maivnomai, mainomai ). In Wisdom 14:28 this word is used to describe the raving ecstasy of pagan worship. So the opponents are saying, in effect, " We don't have to even listen to this man because he is, after all, crazy!"

Why listen to him? This is both the question of Jesus' opponents in this story, and John's question to the reader. Why listen? Because, as Peter said, Jesus has " the words of eternal life" and is the " holy one of God" (6:68, 69).

10:21. Those aligned with Jesus are not buying this ad hominem attack. They still remember that Jesus healed the blind man, and that no one could show the healing to be a fraud. For them this goes far beyond demonic power, and would certainly not be the accomplishment of a crazy person. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind? As in verse 20 the question has a rhetorical function for the reader. In the text this ends the section, but we are not left to wonder what the answer might be. The form of this sentence in Greek expects a negative answer, therefore the answer is " No, of course not!"

Jesus at the Feast of Dedication (10:22-39)

Jesus the Messiah (10:22-31)

²² Then came the Feast of Dedication ^a at Jerusalem. It was winter, ²³ and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. ²⁴ The Jews gathered around him, saying, " How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, ^b tell us plainly."

²⁵ Jesus answered, " I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, ²⁶ but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. ²⁷ My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸ I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ^c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. ³⁰ I and the Father are one."

³¹ Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,

^a 22 That is, Hanukkah ^b 24 Or Messiah ^c 29 Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is greater than all

10:22-23. The scene has now clearly shifted to the Feast of Dedication and Jesus is back in the Jerusalem Temple. The Feast of Dedication is mentioned only here in the New Testament (ejgkaivnia, enkainia , meaning literally " rededication" ). As the NIV footnotes indicate, this is the festival known today as " Hanukkah." This is an eight-day festival beginning on the twenty-fifth of the Jewish month of Kislev (usually falling in our month of December).

Hanukkah is the celebration of a major event in Jewish history (see 1 Macc 4:36-61). In 164 BC Judas Maccabeus drove the Syrian Greeks out of Judea and reestablished Jewish control over Jerusalem and the temple. Judas and his men cleaned out the temple, which had been used for pagan worship by the Syrians. They rebuilt the holy altar (which had been used to sacrifice pigs) and declared an eight-day feast. According to Jewish legend, they could only find one container of undefiled oil for the temple candlestick (menorah), enough for one day. But through a miracle of God the lights burned for the entire eight days, thus giving rise to a popular name for Hanukkah, the " Festival of Lights." The Feast of Dedication was a nationalistic celebration, yet a hollow one at this time of Imperial Roman domination.

John mentions that it was winter , the rainy season in Palestine. This explains why Jesus is operating in Solomon's Colonnade , one of the large covered porches in the temple precincts (see Acts 3:11; 5:12).

10:24. Jesus is encircled by the Jews , apparently his Jewish opponents (cf. v. 31). In the midst of the nationalistic atmosphere of Dedication, they confront Jesus and demand that he make a declaration about his messiahship. This must be done plainly (parrhsiva, parrçsia), which is somewhat the opposite of paroimiva ( paroimia , " hidden saying" ) in verse 6. The motives of these Jews are uncertain to the reader. Perhaps they are secretly hoping that Jesus might claim the heritage of the Festival of Lights and become the new Judas Maccabeus in response to Roman oppression. But it is clear in the narrative that follows that Jesus does not see them as legitimate believers (vv. 25-26).

10:25. " I did tell you . . . ." In the Gospel of John there is no record of Jesus openly claiming to be the Messiah to the Jerusalem crowds previous to this verse (although see 1:41; 4:25-26). But rather than verbally claiming to be the Messiah, Jesus points out that the miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me . " Miracles" is an NIV overtranslation of the Greek word e[rga ( erga = works, deeds). Certainly " miracles" are among his deeds, but his claim is that everything he has done is a proclamation and confirmation that he is the Messiah. Those now challenging him are without excuse for their unbelief, because the miraculous deeds of Jesus are obvious signs of God's approval of him (see 3:2; 7:31).

10:26. Jesus returns to the analogy of the first half of chapter 10: he is the shepherd, his followers/believers are his sheep. Jesus says, " You do not believe because you are not my sheep ." The language here is troubling to Christians who do not believe in unconditional predestination. Those of us in this position would be more comfortable if Jesus had said, " You are not my sheep because you do not believe." Yet there is no grammatical ambiguity in this verse, no possibility of Greek sleight of hand to moderate the force of this language. As difficult as it may seem to us, there is a sense in John that faith is ultimately under the control of God (i.e., omnipotence) and not all are willing to believe (see comments at 12:39). Yet we should also recognize that the sheep analogy is rather fluid, and to read a full-blown doctrine of predestination into this text is not justified.

10:27-29. In verse 10 Jesus said that he came to give his sheep " abundant life." Now this is explained more completely. He gives eternal life (zwhÉn aijwvnion, zôçn aiônion). This promised life is a gift; it is not earned by the sheep/followers of Jesus. Here we get two of the characteristics of eternal life . First, those who have it will never perish (ouj mhÉ ajpovlwntai, ou mç apôlontai). This is an emphatic construction in Greek, meaning, " They will certainly never be destroyed." This is the language of immortality. A second characteristic of eternal life is that no one can snatch them out of my hand . For Jesus this is because these sheep are his with the consent and cooperation of the Father, and no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand . Salvation can never be stolen or taken away. This is true " eternal security," that we rest safely in the arms of God without any fear that the Destroyer, Apollyon, can either destroy us or steal us from God. Who can separate us from the love of God? None! (Rom 8:38-39).

10:30. The enormity of the statement, " I and the Father are one," within the context of the Gospel of John is difficult to overstate. There are several reasons for this. First, this is a type of " I am" statement for Jesus, this time " we are." There is a continued reference to the divine name of Jehovah God, I AM (see comments on 8:58). Second, there is a further divine claim in obvious allusion to the famous Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, " Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." This was the monotheistic bedrock of the Jewish religion, that there was only one God. Yet Jesus has now included himself in this monotheistic confession. He does not mean that he has achieved some type of mystical unity with God that might be more at home with Hinduism. He is speaking of the very essence of his relationship with the Father, that there is a sameness about them. The theological math here is that 1+1=1 (cf. 1:1). And yet a third element in this should be noted. Jesus does not say, " I am the Father." Although he makes a mighty claim here, he continues to maintain a certain level of distinction between the Father and himself.

10:31. For a second time the mighty claims of Jesus cause the unbelieving Jews to prepare for a mob action, a stoning/lynching (cf. 8:59).

Jesus the Son of God (10:32-39)

³² but Jesus said to them, " I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

³³" We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, " but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

³⁴ Jesus answered them, " Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ^a ? ³⁵ If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - ³⁶ what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? ³⁷ Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. ³⁸ But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." ³⁹ Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

^a 34 Psalm 82:6

10:32. Rather than make an immediate escape, Jesus asks these Jewish unbelievers to justify their desire to kill him. Many great miracles is literally " many good works." Jesus knows that he has said many things to infuriate them, but what has he done that would deserve death? His actions have been from the Father .

10:33. The Jews do not deny that Jesus has done great deeds, but this is not their complaint against him in this case. They think he must die for the religious crime of blasphemy. Blasphemy is deliberate disrespect for God and was a capital offense according to Jewish Law (Lev 24:16). The blasphemous offense was that Jesus made a claim to be God . One might quibble over the exact nature of Jesus' statement in verse 30, " I and the Father are one," but they are correct in seeing this as a potentially blasphemous declaration. If Jesus is just a mere man his claims are offensive, delusional, and punishable by death.

10:34-36. What follows is one of the most difficult passages for interpretation in all the New Testament. In response to the objection from the Jews that he has claimed to be God, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, " I have said you are gods ." We may identify at least three separate issues in attempting to understand this passage.

First, does Jesus intend us to understand that he is no more than a human being with a special relationship to God? Or, conversely, does he mean that there are many other humans who have similar status with God as he does? The key to answering these questions is to look more closely at Psalm 82. In a somewhat poetic way, this short psalm is a pointed message to the corrupt judges of the nation of Israel. They " defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked" (Psalm 82:2). The word of God to them in 82:6 is a reminder that while they are " gods" (i.e., entrusted with godlike authority to judge) and " sons of the Most High" (a parallel expression to " gods," but a bit more human), they are still very mortal (82:7) and therefore subject to the ultimate judgment of God himself (82:8). The logic of Jesus, therefore, is that if Jewish Scripture itself refers to human judges as " gods," he has every right to refer to himself as God's Son . For Jesus, this is even more justified because the Father set [him] apart as his very own and sent [him] into the world . Jesus' point is that he can hardly be accused of blasphemy if he has Scriptural precedent for his terminology.

A second issue is the question as to why Jesus says this Old Testament passage is in the Law when it is actually in the Psalms. Did Jesus (or John) make a mistake here? But to see Jesus as making a common human error is unnecessary here. While the Law is most specifically the first five books of the Old Testament, the concept had a range of meaning for first century Jews. It could refer to the specific legal code of books like Leviticus, or the books attributed to Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy), or even Jewish Scripture in a broader sense. This last meaning is intended by Jesus here, and would have included the Psalms. This may be seen in Jesus' qualification of the Law as the writings of those to whom the word of God came .

Third, we should consider the implications of the parenthetical statement, and the Scripture cannot be broken . This verse has been a key text for those who hold to a doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The battle cry of inerrantists has been " Scripture cannot be broken!" But is this a justified use of the text or illegitimate proof-texting? As one who is a friend of the doctrine of inerrancy, my views here are certainly biased. Over a century ago, Charles Hodge defined the doctrine of inerrancy as the position that Scripture is " free from all error whether of doctrine, fact, or precept." While some of the terminology used by defenders of inerrancy may be of relatively recent origin, the idea that Scripture is without error has been the historic position of the church until the last two centuries. This comes from the view that God is an active participant in the writing of Scripture. Since God can neither make mistakes nor be deliberately deceptive, we must conclude that Scripture is without error. According to inerrantists, this position may be traced back to Jesus himself as demonstrated in this verse.

Having said these things, it should be admitted that there are some difficulties in using this verse as the cornerstone for a doctrine of inerrancy. First, it is a parenthetical, side comment of Jesus with little exposition. If John had chosen to lift this comment up a bit higher or do more with it, we would feel more secure about using it as a primary support for such a crucial doctrine. Second, Jesus does not really say that " Scripture is without error." He says that Scripture cannot be broken (from the verb luvw, lyô, meaning " break, destroy, or loose" ). The obvious meaning of this verb is to say something like " Scripture cannot be thwarted" or " Scripture cannot be annulled" (NRSV). Yet there is more here than such a simplistic reading of lyo . Jesus has quoted Scripture as an answer to his critics, and his exact intent is to dare them to say, " Well, Scripture is wrong in this case." It would seem that something like our doctrine of inerrancy is shared by both Jesus and his Jewish opponents . To disavow any sort of doctrine of inerrancy is to hold a different view of Scripture than that of Jesus as found in this text.

10:37-38. Jesus makes one last appeal for faith from his opponents. He says that even if they are not willing to accept Jesus for what he says and who he is, they cannot neglect the miracles . If they would begin with this type of faith, they may learn and understand the central truths that the Father is in [Jesus] and [Jesus] is in the Father. Start with accepting that God was doing the miraculous through Jesus, and move to deeper faith.

10:39. Jesus has talked his way out of being stoned to death (v. 31), but now there is an attempt to seize him , probably a " citizen's arrest" to turn him over to the proper authorities. He does not allow this but escapes, although we are not told specifically that this is a miraculous escape.

Jesus in Retrogression and Progression Simultaneously (10:40-42)

⁴⁰ Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed ⁴¹ and many people came to him. They said, " Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about this man was true." ⁴² And in that place many believed in Jesus.

10:40. Jesus retreats to a safe place, the former site of John the Baptist's activities (probably " Bethany across the Jordan," see 1:28). This is in the region called Perea, meaning, literally, " across [the Jordan]." This region was nominally controlled by Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, rather than the Roman governor.

10:41-42. The influence of John the Baptist is still present in this place when Jesus arrives. They remember that John had spoken about Jesus (see 1:15,26-27,32-34,36; 3:27-30). The result is that this becomes a community of believers in Jesus.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Joh 10:22-42

LXXXVIII.
FEAST OF THE DEDICATION. THE JEWS ATTEMPT
TO STONE JESUS AND HE RETIRES TO PERÆA.
(Jerusalem and beyond Jordan.)
^dJOHN X. 22-42.

   ^d22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem:  23; it was winter; and Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. [The feast of dedication was one of eight days' duration and began upon the 25th Chisleu, which, according to the calculation of M. Chevannes, fell upon the nineteenth or twentieth of December, A. D. 29. The feast was kept in honor of the renovation and purification of the temple in the year B. C. 164, after it had been desecrated by the Syrians under Antiochus Epiphanes (I. Macc. i. 20-60; iv. 36-59; II. Macc. x. 1-8; Jos. Ant. xii. 7. 6, 7). As this feast was commemorative of national deliverance, the rulers considered it an opportune time to tempt Jesus to declare himself to be the Messiah, or coming Deliverer from the present Roman oppression. We are told that it was winter, that we may understand why Jesus walked under cover in Solomon's porch. This was a colonnade on the east side of the temple court, the name probably being derived from the wall against which it was built, which Josephus tells us was the work of Solomon -- Jos. Ant. xx. 9. 7.]  24 The Jews therefore came round [484] about him [as if to detain him until he answered], and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. [The previous conduct and temper of the questioners, together with the context (which includes an attempt to stone, followed by an effort to arrest), shows that this question was asked for the purpose of committing Jesus to an open declaration which might be used as an accusation against him.]  25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me. [Jesus was the Christ of the Old Testament, but not the Christ of Pharisaic hopes. Had he assumed to himself in their presence the title of Christ, it would have led them to false expectations. By his declarations and works Jesus had repeatedly published and proved to all his claims to be the true Messiah. He had, at the feast of tabernacles, set himself forth as the Good Shepherd, and on other occasions as the Son of God, etc. (Joh 5:19, Joh 8:36, Joh 8:56). Had they understood or received the Old Testament ideal of the Messiah, they could not have failed to understand his claims.]  26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. [Failure to be Christ's sheep was not the cause, but the evidence of their unbelief.]  27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:  28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. [The thought here is similar to to that set forth on Rom 8:38, Rom 8:39; but both passages must be interpreted in the light of Heb 6:4-8. We can not be taken from God against our will; but our will being free, we may choose to leave him. We can not be [485] protected against ourselves in spite of ourselves. If that were so, no one could be lost.]  30 I and the Father are one. [This assertion as to the unity of power residing in the hand brings forward the idea of the general unity which subsists between the Father and the Son. This unity Jesus asserts fully, without limitation or restriction; the unity of interest, design, and essence are all included. It is the advance from an assertion of special unity to an assertion of general unity.]  31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. [They prepared to act on Lev 24:14-16, and a precedent as to it found at 1Ki 21:10; though the right to stone for blasphemy was now abrogated by the Roman dominion. The repairs and enlargements then going on in the temple no doubt supplied an abundance of missiles. The word "again" refers back to Joh 8:59.]  32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?  33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. [Jesus, conscious that he was living the divine life, endeavored to arouse the Jews to a consciousness of that life by asking them to point out what part of it offended them. It was a demand that his claim to be divine be tested and judged by his life. But the Jews insisted upon judging him by his words without in any way taking his life into account. Jesus urged that a divine claim was made good by a divine life, but they replied that a divine claim issuing from a human body was blasphemy.]  34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law [Psa 82:6. The whole Old Testament not infrequently is thus designated as the "law"], I said, Ye are gods?  35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken),  36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? [Since the civil rulers of a land are ordained of God (Rom 13:1-7, 1Sa 24:6, 1Sa 24:7), they were regarded as God's delegates or ministers, and as such the inspired Psalmist addresses them, calling them gods. Compare also Exo 22:28. If it was not blasphemy to call those gods who so remotely represented the Deity, how much less did Christ blaspheme in taking unto himself a title to which he had a better right than they, even in the subordinate sense of being a mere messenger. The expression "word of God" is equivalent to "commission from God." Compare Luk 3:2, where John was commissioned. The Jews regarded the Scripture as final authority. Jesus asserted this view by stating that the Scripture could not be broken; that is, could not be undone or set aside. We may regard Jesus as here ratifying their view, since he elsewhere concurred in it -- see Mat 5:19.]  37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.  38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. [Having set aside their false judgment which was based upon his mere words, Jesus again bids them to consider his works or manner of life.]  39 They sought again to take him: and he went forth out of their hand. [The calm reasoning of Jesus cooled their violence, and so far changed their evil designs that they now sought to arrest him that they might bring him before the Sanhedrin. The word "again" refers back to Joh 7:30, Joh 7:32, Joh 7:44.]  40 And he went away again beyond the Jordan into the place where John was at first baptizing; and there he abode. [The word "again" either refers to Joh 1:28, or else it refers to some former escape beyond the Jordan not recorded by John, but by one of the other evangelists. The supplementary nature of John's Gospel makes this latter view somewhat plausible.]  41 And many came unto him; and they said, John indeed did no sign: but all things whatsoever John spake of this man were true. [John at first baptized "in the wilderness of Judæa" and afterwards at Bethany and Ænon. The presence of Jesus in this place recalled to the [487] minds of the people the work of the Baptist and his testimony concerning Jesus. They had held John to be a prophet, yet when they searched for his credentials as a prophet, they found them inextricably intertwined with the claims of Jesus. John had failed to prove himself a prophet by miracles and signs -- the accustomed credentials. But he had done so by his predictions which had come true, and all of these predictions related to Jesus.]  42 And many believed on him there. [The word "there" stands in contrast to Jerusalem, which rejected Jesus.]

[FFG 484-488]

Lapide: Joh 10:1-32

1-41

CHAPTER 10

Ver. 1.— Verily, verily (that is in truth, most truly and most assuredly), I say unto you, He that entereth not, &c. He puts forth this parable to show who He is, and who are His rivals and adversaries. The occasion for it was because the Pharisees had cast out of the synagogue for his confession of Christ the blind man whom He had healed. By doing this they signified that Jesus was not the Messiah, but a false prophet; and consequently that they who believed in Him, as the blind man who had been cured did, erred in their belief, and wandered away from the synagogue, and were apostates from their own Church. Christ therefore puts forth the parable of the door of the sheepfold; to show by it, that so far from His being a false prophet, all others who enter not by Him as the door of the sheepfold into the Church of God, are deceivers and counterfeits. And that consequently the synagogue of the Pharisees was not the synagogue of God, but of Satan. Whereas the true Church of God is the Christian Church which Christ founded and substituted for the Jewish Church, and consequently the blind man when excommunicated from the synagogue, entered by faith in Christ into the true, i.e., the Christian Church.

In order that the reader may easily comprehend the whole parable, I will here give a summary of it. (1.) The sheepfold is the Church of God. (2.) The owner is God the Father. (3.) The door is Christ, or faith in Him, who is inclosed by the Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets as by a door firm-fastened with its bolts. (4.) The porter is the Holy Spirit. (5.) The sheep are not merely the predestinated, as S. Augustine held, but all the faithful that are within the Church. (6.) The true Pastors and Prelates are those who enter through Christ. (7.) To these the porter, i.e., the Holy Spirit, openeth, because faith in Christ, by the which they enter, is the gift of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit gives them true and lawful power, so that what they do is ratified by God. (8.) They lead out the sheep, i.e., the faithful, into the pastures of sound doctrine, grace, and virtues, go before them by their own example of a good life, and call them by their names, because they have a care for them severally, and exhort, stimulate, and compel them one by one to better things. (9.) He who enters not into the sheepfold through Christ, but by leaping over the wall, or breaking through a window or wall, is a thief and robber of the sheep, that is, of the faithful: for he is busy in killing and destroying them. The other matters are mere ornamental additions, and are not to be applied in illustration of the subject.

Let us consider these points one by one, and review them again.

He that entereth not by the door, &c. Such were Judas of Galilee and Theudas (Act 5:36-37), and others who pretended that they were the Messiah, or endeavoured to arrogate to themselves that which specially belonged to the Messiah. And such, too, the Scribes and Pharisees were beginning to be, who before this had received legitimate authority from God through the merits of Christ, to teach and govern His people; and were therefore His true Pastors and Teachers. But by opposing themselves to Christ, now present among them, and by turning away the people from Him, they became wolves, nay thieves and robbers of the faithful. So S. Augustine, and from him the Gloss. Against the arrogance of the Pharisees, who boasted they could see, He brings forward this similitude, which shows that neither wisdom nor a good life can avail aught except through Him. And S. Chrysostom says: "By the phrase, another way, He signifies the Scribes who taught the doctrines and commandments of men, and transgressed the law." Such were the false prophets of old, and heretics now, of whom Jeremiah writes (Jer 23:21). Hear S. Augustine, "Let pagans, or heretics, or Jews say, 'We live well;' if they enter not by the door, what does it profit them? And they are to be said not to live well who either know not the end of good living through blindness, or else contemn it through pride of heart."

Tropologically:—S. Augustine, "Lowly is the door, even Christ. He who enters by this door must needs be humble, in order that he may be able to enter without hurting his head by striking it against the lintel But he who humbleth not himself, but wishes to climb up by the wall, is exalted only that he may fall." And the same S. Augustine ( Serm. xlix ., de Verb. Dom.) says, "He enters by the door who imitates Christ and His humility. He is a 'thief' who strives to steal away the sheep from Christ, and claim them for himself. He is also a 'robber,' because he kills the souls of the faithful, and hands them over to hell." And so S, Augustine ( in loc.), "He is a thief who calls 'his own' that which is another's." "By making the sheep of God his own," says the Gloss. "He is a 'robber' because he kills what he has stolen," says S. Augustine.

Tropologically:—Salmeron says humorously ( Tract, p. 88), "Men enter ecclesiastical benefices by various means. (1.) By the royal gate, courtiers as recommended by great men. (2.) By the golden gate. (3.) By the gate of consanguinity. (4.) By the gate of gifts (simony). (5.) By the gate of doing service, those who by their obsequiousness are promoted by bishops to benefices. They lie in sickness and wait for the moving of the waters, that is for the vacant post. For he who is first gains favour with the successor, and obtains the benefice."

Ver. 2 . — But he that entereth, &c. By the door S. Chrysostom understands the Holy Scriptures. "For these," he says, "lay open the knowledge of God, protect the sheep, drive away wolves, by precluding access to heretics." So also Theophylact, Leontius, and Euthymius. And also Theodorus of Heraclea ( in Cat.), who gives also a further reason. "Scripture is the door, because he is a true pastor to whom the door gives ingress, that is on whom Scripture confers authority, and thus secures his acceptance." Other fathers regard Christ as the door, as He Himself says expressly. But you will say, Christ is the shepherd of the sheep, therefore He cannot be a door. For the shepherd enters by the door, therefore He cannot Himself be the door. S. Augustine replies; "The Lord Himself is the pastor and the door. He opens Himself who expounds Himself, and the porter is the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord says, 'He will teach you all truth.' Christ therefore, who is the truth, is the door, and He who teacheth the truth openeth the door." And the Gloss says, "All who hold and teach the truth are one shepherd in Christ the Shepherd." Christ retained for Himself alone the name of door, for the sheep to enter in to God. But the shepherd entereth the door. For Christ Himself and other preachers preach Christ. But you may say more simply with Maldonatus, that Christ the shepherd enters by the door, i.e., by Himself, into the Church, because He enters by His own authority, but others by authority derived from Him. But it is not possible in a parable to make all expressions fit in exactly. Moreover, Syrians and Hebrews delight in parables, heaping them up one on another, and running them into each other. As Christ in this place mixes up the similes of the door and the shepherd.

Ver. 3. — To him the porter openeth. (1.) That is Moses, as bearing testimony to Christ, says S. Chrysostom and others. (See chap. v. 46.) (2.) S. Cyril thinks that it means the angel who presides over the whole Church (S. Michael, as is supposed). (3.) The genuine meaning (according to S. Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others) is, that it means the Holy Ghost, "for the Scriptures opened by Him point out Christ as the Shepherd," says Theophylact. Or rather the Holy Ghost opened a door for Christ into the Church, when He constituted Him the Pastor of the Church, confirmed His authority by His testimony, His grace, and miracles, as when He descended on Him in the form of a dove at His baptism, and afterwards through Him gave sight to the blind, healed the sick, and raised the dead. And He also places over the Church all other Pastors whatsoever, the lawful successors of Christ, and causes them to be acknowledged and accepted, and by them brings in all the other faithful into the Church. He also exposes the frauds of heretics, and causes them to be expelled from the Church.

And the sheep hear his voice. Just as sheep when they hear the call of the shepherd, so do Christian people acknowledge the true pastor (and those whom He substitutes as His deputies), listen to His voice, and follow Him in all things. S. Augustine, and Bede after him, understand by the sheep only the predestinated, for they are called sheep, and are distinguished from the goats (Mat 23:33). But this relates to the judgment when the elect and saved are separated from the reprobate. But the present passage relates to the Church militant, where the elect are mingled with the reprobate, and cannot be separated. Both then are called sheep. The sheep then are all the faithful. For they are all of them in the Church, and acknowledge, love, and worship Christ as their Shepherd.

And calleth His own sheep by name, i.e., one by one. For the shepherd looks after them singly, and calls them, both in a body and separately, to follow Him to the pasture. And if any of them be sick He takes it out by itself, gives remedies, and if necessary carries it on His shoulders. Moreover, skilful shepherds commonly give names to their sheep and other animals, and call to them by their names. And in like manner Christ and every pastor give names to Christians at their baptism, and call them by them. He also takes care of them one by one, so as to feed them by His example and the Holy Sacraments, and thus leads them to salvation and heavenly glory.

Leontius observes that Christ here sets forth eight signs and duties of a true pastor; that he enters by the door, that the Porter opens to him, that he can address his sheep by their several names, that he leads forth his sheep, that he goes before them, that his sheep follow him, and that he lays down his life for the sheep. Such was S. Chrysostom, who, speaking on his banishment, thus addresses his people ( Hom. xi.), "Ye are my father, ye are my mother, ye are my life, ye are my grace. If ye make progress, I am delighted. Ye are my crown, my riches, my treasure. I am prepared to be offered a thousand times for you; nor need you thank me for this. I am only discharging a debt. For a good pastor ought to lay down his life for his sheep. For to such an one death brings immortal life."

And leads them forth to the pastures, which are not without, but within the fold, that is in the Church itself. For in the Church the pastor teaches the people, celebrates Mass, baptizes, administers the Sacraments, &c. Besides, the Church is the assembly of the faithful, and therefore where the faithful are there also is the Church, or a part thereof

Ver. 4. — And when he leadeth forth his sheep (to the pastures) he goeth before them, to lead the way, to defend them from the wolf and the spoiler, and to lead those that follow him by a direct and convenient road to better pastures. And so in like manner Christ and every true pastor (1.) go before the faithful in their way to heaven by the example of a holy life. Let a pastor therefore consider that he ought to be the leader and guide of the faithful in sanctity, to surpass them all, to give to all a bright pattern of virtues, so that looking on him, they may follow him to greater heights, as S. Peter says (1 Epist. chap. v. 3). (2.) A pastor by his vigilance and energy protects the faithful from heretics, scandals, and other evils. (3.) He points out the straight way to heaven, and feeds and nurtures them with the best advice he can.

Anagogically. St Augustine says, He who went before the sheep is He who being raised from the dead, dieth no more, and who said to the Father, "I will that they also whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am." (Joh 17:24)

And the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. They distinguish his voice from that of others, and therefore follow it.

Ver. 5. — But a stranger will they not follow, for they know not the voice of strangers, i.e., of heretics, Jews, heathens, and all wicked and deceitful men, for the genuine sheep of Christ fly from them as from wolves.

Ver. 6.— This parable spake Jesus unto them, but they knew not what things they were which he snake unto them. In the Greek παζοιμίον, a similitude, proverb. (See note on Pro 1:5.) The Pharisees and Jews, against whom He launched it (and the apostles also), did not understand it, as being involved and obscure.

Ver. 7.— Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. Maldonatus thinks that Christ here speaks of two doors, the door of the house, i.e., Holy Scriptures, and the door of the sheepfold, which is Christ. He believes that the word door is used in two senses, one by which the shepherds themselves, and the other by which the sheep enter. But this distinction is more subtil than solid. For Christ speaks in both cases of one and the same door, that is of the sheepfold. What He said obscurely and parabolically (ver. 1) He explained in the parable. "He opened," says S. Augustine, "that which was closed. He is the door. Let us enter that we may rejoice in having so done." This distinction evades indeed one difficulty, i.e., how Christ enters as a shepherd through the door; that is, how He enters the door of the Church by Scripture witnessing to Him. But it does not escape the other difficulty—how the same person is both the shepherd and the door. We must say, therefore, that He united together two parables (as was said above, ver. 2). For Christ intended to teach two things. First, that no one could enter into the Church, and afterwards into heaven, that is be justified and sanctified, except through Him. This He shows by the parable of the door. For as there is no ingress into the fold except through the door, so there is no entrance into the Church, militant and triumphant, except through Christ; and secondly, that He is the true Shepherd, as laying down His life for the sheep; but that the others were hirelings, whom the sheep ought not to follow. This He sets forth by the parable of the shepherd. But because this latter subject is connected with the former, He mixes up the two parables together.

Ver. 8. — All that ever came before me were thieves and robbers. What then! were all the prophets thieves and robbers? S. Augustine ( contra Faustum, xvi. 12, and S. Jerome, lib. ii . contra Pelag.) replies that the prophets came not of their own accord, but were sent by God. And again they were not sent in addition to Christ, but with Christ, as His precursors, and announcing His advent. They were therefore not contrary to Christ, but counted as one with Him, as having come for His sake, and by His order and guidance. "They came with the Word of God. He sent them as the heralds of Him who was to come, and He possessed the hearts of those whom He had sent." Euthymius adds, "They came indeed before Christ, but they entered through the door." He speaks specially of those impostors who claimed to be the long-expected Messiah. They were thieves and robbers, such as Judas of Galilee, Theudas, and afterwards Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and many others, who claimed for themselves the name and title of the Christ. So S. Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, and others.

But the sheep did not hear them. Because they discovered that they did not bring the token of the Messiah, as predicted by the prophets, but wished to steal away the faithful from Christ to claim them for themselves, and to cast them into hell.

Ver. 9. — I am the door, &c. Rupertus thinks that this relates to a different door and a different sheepfold from the other, according to what is said (ver. 16), "Other sheep I have," &c. But there is only one fold of Christ; one Church, that is. As He subjoins, "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." The meaning of the door already spoken of, Christ partly confirms, partly explains when He adds, "By Me if any man, enter in, he shall be saved." That is, if any man believe in Me, and therefore through faith in Me and by My grace enters the Church, "he shall be saved," i.e., shall be justified and blessed, if he continues, that is, in My faith, grace and charity even unto death. So S. Gregory ( Epist. lib. vii . 49). "He enters through the door into the sheepfold who enters through Christ. But he enters through Christ who believes and teaches the truth concerning Him—the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, and abides by what he preached."

And will go in and out. Will go out to the pastures, and after having fed will return to the resting-place, as sheep do. For the faithful will, when well fed, enter the fold of the Church, and again when hungry will go forth to the pastures of the soul, without any peril, for I will guide them to and fro.  So Maldonatus.

But to go in and out signifies among the Hebrews to act with freedom, do one's own work, &c., and is connected with what follows. It means, the faithful man will move about everywhere without fear; will do his duty, and whatever he does, whether at home or abroad, will everywhere find food for his soul. The phrase denotes security, confidence, and freedom of converse; and of doing everything, everywhere, for and through Christ. So Cyril, Chrysostom.

Symbolically and tropologically, S. Gregory ( Hom. xiv.) "The faithful withdraws within himself by contemplation, and comes forth in action to do good works." "He will enter in," says S. Augustine, "for inward meditation, he will go forth for outward action." The author of De spiritu et anima, says, "He will enter within to contemplate My Godhead, he will go forth to contemplate My Manhood, and in either case will find wondrous pastures." And in another place S. Gregory writes, "Within, they have the pastures of contemplation; without, the pastures of good works; inwardly they enrich their mind with devotions, outwardly they satiate themselves with good works." And lastly, Theophylact says, "He will enter in who has a care for the inward man; he will go out who mortifies his members upon earth."

Anagogically, Rupertus says, "He enters the Church by faith, to find therein pastures; he will go out when at death he migrates therefrom into heaven." "He enters," says S. Augustine, "into the Church through the door of faith, and goes forth through the same door of living faith into eternal life, where he will find pasture." And S. Gregory, "He will enter into faith, he will go forth to hope, and will find pasture in eternal satiety."

Ver. 10.— The thief cometh not, &c. He shows what is the end and aim of him whom before He called a thief, and what on the contrary was His own. The thief and robber of the sheep,—as for instance a heretic or schismatic, a Scribe or Pharisee, or especially a false-Christ,—comes to carry off the sheep ( i.e., the faithful) from God and the Church, whose property they are, to hand them over to the synagogue of Satan, and there kill them by heresy and sin, and cast them into hell. But I who am the true Shepherd of the sheep ( i.e., of the faithful) came down from heaven, not for My own sake, but for that of the faithful, that being freed by Me, they may have the life of grace, even yet more abundantly. The word πεζισσὸν may be taken either as an adverb ( abundantly ), or as an adjective ( abundant ), that is, surpassing, exceeding all measure, that is, that they may abound in My doctrine and grace, and may live thereby, quick in spirit, enriched with spiritual gifts both in this world by grace, and in the world to come by glory. So S. Cyril and others. Rupertus adds, "that Christians may have more abundant grace than the Jews under the old law." This abounding life of the spirit, inspired by Christ, you may see in S. Peter and the other Apostles, in Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, &c. Hence the glowing language of S. Paul, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ," &c. (Rom. viii.)

Ver. 11.— I am the good Shepherd, &c. I, the one only Prince of Shepherds, who will lay down My life for My sheep, to redeem them by My death from death, and confer on them both present and eternal life. Neither prophets, nor apostles, nor any one else could do this. For though they were slain for the sake of the faithful, yet they did not redeem them, sanctify, or beatify them. So Rupertus, Chrysostom, &c. S. Augustine adds that the prophets and apostles are counted as one and the same shepherd with Christ, as being under Him, sent also and guided and protected by Him. Christ therefore is that special and singular Pastor foretold by Ezekiel 34:23. (See notes in loc.)

Christ passes from the parable of the door to the more striking parable of the Shepherd. He is the door by which the sheep enter, and also the Shepherd of the sheep: that is not any ordinary one, but the chief, special, and Divine Shepherd. And He enters through the door, that is, by Himself and His own authority.

Besides this Christ rejoices in the title of Shepherd, as being most appropriate and most sweet. He used to be thus represented in very ancient pictures, at Rome, as carrying a sheep on His shoulders. Many of the patriarchs, who were types and ancestors of Christ, were shepherds, learning thereby (says Philo) to be shepherds of men, &c. "If therefore thou wishest to know and to discharge the office of a true Pastor, see how a shepherd treats his sheep. Be so eminent in doctrine and sanctity among thy faithful ones, as to appear like a rational pastor among the irrational sheep, and as an angel among men." (S. Chrysostom) He attends to his sheep one by one; let him lead them into richer pastures. He goes before them by his virtuous example, as S. Paul exhorts Titus (Tit 2:7). As a parish priest he drives away all heretics and hurtful persons. And let him feed his flock with sound doctrines and sacraments, and not fatten himself on the milk of his flock (Ezek. xxxiv. 2). Let him not be mercenary, seeking his own profit, paying court to the well-to-do and noble, and despising the rustics and mean of his flock. For Christ went about villages and towns, preaching the Gospel to the poor (Matt.xi.). Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, was a noble example of this; he refused to exchange his poor bishoprick for a wealthier one, saying that he could render a better account at the day of judgment for his few sheep and small gains than he could for greater ones. For he said, "If men did but know how exact an account would be required, they would not seek to obtain great and wealthy bishoprics." (Sanders in Schism. Angl.) A good shepherd tenderly feeds and fosters the lambs and delicate ones of his flock (see Ezek. xxxiv. 4). And so does a parish priest and a bishop. (See the life of S. Abraham written by S. Ephrem.) He came from being an anchoret to be the pastor of a wild and barbarous people, and though cruelly entreated by them, brought them by his indomitable patience, gentleness, and charity, to submit to the laws of Christ.

Jacob, like a true shepherd, watched over his flock by day and night (Gen 31:40); and shepherds were watching over their flocks by night when Christ was born. So too should a parish priest or a bishop vigilantly watch over his flock, as his first duty. A shepherd risks his own life in guarding his sheep. So should a parish priest, when persecution or pestilence threatens; as did SS. Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil, Ambrose. Lastly, S. Peter, the chief pastor of the Church, lays down notes for the pastors under him (1Pe 5:2). See also S. Gregory ( in Pastorali ), S. Bernard ( de Consider. ad Eugenium ), and S. Augustine ( Tract de Pastoribus et Ovibus ).

All these duties are summed up in charity, for charity supremely loves God, and for His sake the faithful committed to its care by God. (See also chap. xxi. 15.)

The good Shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. This does not relate so much to the parable itself, as to that which is signified by it. For the natural Shepherd ought to count his own life of greater value than the lives of his sheep. And yet he ought to protect his sheep even at the risk of his life. But the shepherd of souls is bound, by his duty, to expose his bodily life to danger, for the spiritual life of the faithful committed to his charge. And hence he is bound to stand by them in the time of the plague, or provide some other qualified person to administer the sacraments to the sick, as did S. Charles Borromeo: and for this reason was canonised. And so also all the apostles, excepting S. John, suffered martyrdom for the sake of the faithful committed to their care. And so also nearly all the Roman Pontiffs down to S. Sylvester. But the leader of them all was Christ, who alone, as the best of Shepherds, laid down His life as a ransom, while all the others did so merely to manifest their faith, and as a pattern of virtue.

Ver. 12. — But he that is an hireling, &c. An hireling seeks not the good of the sheep but merely his own profit. "Hirelings are they," says S. Augustine, "who seek their own things, and not the things of Christ and of the sheep." So too S. Basil. But the apostles, though they fed not their own sheep, but the sheep of Christ, were not hirelings, because they sought not their own temporal gain, but the spiritual and eternal gain of the faithful. "He is called a hireling, and not a shepherd," says S. Gregory ( Hom. xiv.), "who feeds the Lord's sheep, not from deepest love, but for worldly gain. The hireling is he who holds the post of a shepherd, but seeks not to gain souls; is eager for earthly advantages, rejoices in the honour of the prelacy, feeds on temporal gains, delights in the reverence paid to him by men."

Seeth the wolf coming. "For in a time of tranquillity," says S. Gregory, "very often the hireling, as well as the true shepherd, stands on guard over the flock. But the approach of the wolf shows the temper of mind with which they did so. The wolf attacks the sheep when the violent and the spoiler oppress those who are faithful and humble. But he who seemed to be a shepherd and was not, leaves the sheep and runs away, because through fear for himself he does not venture to withstand his injustice."

Fleeth : "Not by change of place," says S. Gregory, "but by withdrawing support. He flies, because he saw injustice and held his peace: he flies, because he conceals himself by silence. To whom the prophet well says, "Ye have not gone up against him, nor raised up a wall for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord" (Eze 13:5).

And the wolf catcheth them, i.e. A heretic, or any wicked man, who strives to pervert the faithful by word or example, or (as S. Gregory says) "the devil, who seizes them when he draws away this man to luxury, inflames another with avarice, puffs up another with pride, parts asunder others through anger, stimulates another with envy, supplants another by deceit. The devil therefore scatters the flock when he kills the faithful by temptations. But the hireling is not inflamed by zeal against such attacks, is not enkindled by any warmth of love. Because by looking after mere outward advantages, he carelessly takes no account of the inward injury which is done to the flock."

And hence, Christ leaves it to be gathered by contrast that the good shepherd when he sees the wolf coming neither flies nor forsakes his sheep, but stands firm and fights for them even to death, and in this way lays down his life for them. But when it is allowable for a pastor to fly when persecuted, and when not, see notes on S. Mat 10:23. Also S. Augustine ( Epis. clxxx . ad Honoratum ). I use on this matter the words of S. Gregory the more freely, because he had full experience of those things in his own person.

Ver. 13.— The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. As though it were said directly, he who loves not the sheep, but worldly gain, cannot stand firm when the sheep are in danger. For while he is aiming at honour, and rejoicing in worldly gain, he is afraid of exposing himself to danger, lest he should lose that which he loves. For no one takes such diligent care for that which is another's as he does for his own. And therefore the hireling cares more for his own life than for the sheep which are not his; and flies when the wolf comes, as caring more for his own life than for the sheep.

Ver. 14.— I am the good shepherd, and know My sheep. Christ knows His sheep not merely with the watchful and tender eyes of His Godhead (as 8. Cyril says), but also with the eyes of His manhood (for it is as man that He is the Pastor of His Church). He knows who are His faithful ones, what are their gifts, and also what are their weaknesses, that He may increase the one, and heal the other. He knows them therefore not merely speculatively, but practically, and heaps on them all His gifts, benefits, and graces.

And am known of Mine, with the eyes of faith, hope, and charity, because they believe in Me, hope in Me, and love Me above all things. "Because I love them, they love Me in return, for love is the loadstone of love: if thou wishest to be loved, thou thyself must love. Love is the powerful allurement of love." So Theophylact. And besides this His love of us, He inspires in us love for Him in return. And this love is our highest good, leading us to heaven and making us blessed.

Ver. 15.— As the Father knoweth Me, &c. By this comparison Christ points out both the origin and also the greatness of the love which He bestows on His sheep. The boundless knowledge and love which exists between the Father and Myself, is the source of the love which exists between Myself and My faithful ones. Both because divine and uncreated love is the source of all human and created love; and also because it is the Father's will that I should love My faithful ones with great and special love, as He loves Me, and I love Him with boundless affection; for He wishes to adopt My faithful ones through Me who am His Son by nature, and He therefore loves them supremely as His children. And I do the same, because I submit in all things to the love and will of the Father; nay more, My love is the same as the Father's, as our will, our nature, and our Godhead is the same.

But here note the word "as" signifies similarity, not equality. For the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father with uncreated, and therefore infinite love. But the Son, as man, loves His own with a created and finite love, and is loved with a like love by them in return. But there will be here also a kind of equality, if with Maldonatus you explain it thus: "When Christ says, I know My sheep, He speaks as God; but when He says, The Father knoweth Me, and I know My Father, He speaks of Himself as man. For just as Christ (as God) knows His sheep, and His sheep as men know Him in return; so the Father, as God, knows the Son as man, and the Son, as man, acknowledges His Father, and calls Him Father, as we do ourselves. 'I ascend to My Father, and your Father'" (Joh 20:17).

And I lay down My life for My sheep. This refers back to verse 14. "I know My sheep," I love them, i.e., most ardently, and therefore I lay down, i.e., I will shortly lay down, My life for them. He put in the words, "as the Father knoweth Me," to represent the source and the intensity of His love for His people, by His love for the Father, for it was this love which urged Him to lay down His life for His sheep. But the words "I lay down" signify that the death of Christ was not compulsory, but voluntary, self-chosen, and even loved for their salvation. So Leontius. And Christ thus expresses Himself below (ver. 18). "No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself." And the words also signify, "I lay it down for a time, in order to take it again." The death of Christ therefore was not so much a death as the placing His soul for three days in Limbus.

Ver. 16.— And other sheep I have, &c. Other sheep, i.e., those who will be My sheep. This is spoken by anticipation. He means the Gentiles, and thus predicts their call and conversion, to show that He was to be the King and Shepherd of all nations, just as up to this time He had been of the Jews: and that, consequently, He did not care (comparatively) whether the Jews (few as they were in number) would be unbelieving and rebellious, since He was about to put countless Gentiles in their place. So Rupertus, who adds, "and they will hear My voice," striking quietly at the Jews.

And there will be one fold, and one shepherd. Some suppose that in the end of the world, God will convert all the Jews by Elias, and all the Gentiles by Enoch, and thus there will become one Church, made up of them both, and one Pastor, Christ, and His Vicar the Supreme Pontiff, who will be called the Angelic Pastor. (See the list of hopes, described symbolically, in the life of S. Malachi.) But they are in error. For neither will Elias convert all the Jews, nor Enoch all the Gentiles. For there will be then many unbelievers and followers of antichrist. But this is far from being the meaning of Christ. It was, that after His death and resurrection His apostles would be dispersed among all nations, and convert them, so that both Jews and Gentiles would be gathered into one Church of believers, under one Shepherd, Christ, and His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff. This is not to be looked forward to as something future, for it took place in the time of Constantine the first Christian emperor, who christianised nearly all the nations which were subject to him. The Apostle graphically sets this before us (Eph.2)

Ver. 17. — Therefore doth My Father love me, &c. Lest the Jews should despise Him as a mere man who would die on the Cross, He meets the objection by saying that His death would be glorious, and an object of desire, because He could of His own accord submit to it from love of, and obedience to the Father, and therefore to be loved, honoured, and exalted, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, &c. (Phi 2:10).

I lay down My life, i.e., My soul. So S. Augustine and others, who from this passage prove that Christ had a human soul, in opposition to Apollinarius, who maintained that His Divinity was in the place of a soul. But others understand by it "life," which is caused by the union of soul and body. It comes to the same thing. That I may take it again. I do not destroy it but only lay it aside for a short time, that I may rise and take it again. S. Cyril refers back to the words "My Father loveth Me." He loves Me not merely because I set My sheep free by My death, but also because I quicken them by My rising again. As S. Paul says, Rom. iv. 25.

Ver. 18.— No one taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. For though the Jews are about to slay Me by force, yet this force of theirs would not avail against Me, unless I allow it of My own accord. And again, "Though I allow it, yet it is still in My power to die, or not to die. For by My Godhead I can impart such strength to My manhood, that it cannot be destroyed by any nails, blows, scourgings, or wounds which I suffer by My own will; just as I support the bodies of the beatified, and render them impassible." So Toletus. And hence Christ on the Cross cried aloud and gave up the ghost to show that He died without compulsion, and of His own accord, when He might, had He so willed, have lived on. For He who had strength to cry aloud, had strength also to live, so that the centurion beholding this said, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Mat 27:54).

I have power, &c. By My mighty and glorious Resurrection, which My soul will effect through the Power of My Divinity, hypostatically united to it. He here signifies that He is God as well as man; as man He lays down His life, as God He resumes it. So S. Cyril.

This commandment have I received from My Father. This was the reason for laying down His life. He was so ordered by the Father, lest the Jews should object "You have taken this duty on yourself, that Thou mightest be worshipped, as the Mediator, Messiah, and Saviour of the world." It is hence clear that it was a weighty commandment He received, that of suffering and dying on the Cross. "He became obedient" (to the commandment of the Father, for obedience properly so called presupposes a command, and is in fact its correlative; for obedience is that which is ordered, and a command implies obedience, for it is the formal object of obedience) "even to the death of the cross." So S. Cyril, S. Ambrose ( de Fide, v. 5), & Thomas, Suarez and others. But this command did not physically compel the will of Christ to obey it. It left it free. But it pertained to the Person of the Word to "prevent" the will of Jesus by supplies of grace, to which It foresaw it would willingly consent, and obey the command. And it was in this respect, that is in consequence of the continual keeping ( custodiam ) of the Word, that the manhood of Christ was said to be extrinsically impeccable, not because the Word predetermined It, but because It supplied It with fitting aids, with which It foresaw it would freely obey the command. For by this foreknowledge of future conditional events the freedom of Christ's will is fully preserved (see Suarez, part iii. Quæst. xviii.). And by this generous obedience in so difficult a matter, Christ obtained salvation for us, and glory for Himself. Set then, 0 Religious, this command of the Father, and this obedience of Christ before thine eyes, when any difficult task is imposed on thee by thy Superior.  R. Juda says admirably ( Pirke Avoth. cap. v.), "Be daring as a leopard, swift as an eagle, nimble as a deer, courageous as a lion, to do the will of thy Father which is in heaven"

Ver. 20.— And many of them said, &c.

Ver. 21.— Others said, &c. For he is proud as Lucifer, and instigated by him, He calls God His Father and makes Himself the Son of God.

He is thoroughly mad in saying that he lays down His life of Himself, though we see that He is alive, and no one does so except by compulsion. Moreover, Christ did not reply to these calumnies, as not being worthy of an answer, and also because He allowed those who supported Him to answer, for we give greater credit to others than to one who testifies of himself.

Ver. 22 — And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication. When the first temple was dedicated, as S. Cyril holds, or rebuilt by Zerubbabel, as S. Chrysostom and others suppose, or what is more probable its rededication, after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. The feast was held on the 25th of the month Casleu. It was celebrated with great rejoicing, and was called the feast of Lights (see Josephus, Ant xii. 2, and 2 Macc. 1: 18). All which S. John records from (Joh 7:2 to this point took place in the two months between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of the Dedication: and in the three following months up to the Feast of the Passover there occurred the events which are recorded here to the end of the Gospel, and also in S. Luke from chap. 15 onwards.

Tropologically:—These Encænia set forth the renewal of a mind polluted by sin, and sanctified and consecrated anew to God by repentance.

And it was winter. This was stated, says Theophylact, to signify the approaching time of the Passion which took place the following spring. S. Cyril adds that it was said in order to give the reason why Jesus walked in the Porch, so as to be under cover from the cold. Mystically there is here signified (says the Gloss) the coldness of the Jews, who draw not near to the fire, i.e. who believe not in Christ.  S. Augustine says, "The Jews were cold in charity and love, and were burning with eagerness to do hurt; they approached Him not as followers, but pressed on Him as persecutors." "Do thou also," says Theophylact, "while it is winter, that is while this present life is shaken with the whirlwinds of iniquity, keep the spiritual dedication feast, by daily renewing thyself, and by ordering the ascensions of thy heart." Christ will be present to thee in Solomon's Porch, making for thee a peaceable resting-place.

Ver. 23. — And Jesus waited in the temple. In the Porch (or Portico), the outer part of the temple. In Solomon's porch. The temple of the Jews had two parts. The first, the Sanctuary, frequented only by the Priests, who discharged three functions, burning morning and evening incense on the altar of incense, lighting the lamps and replacing the shew-bread every Sabbath. The inner part, the Holy of Holies, which the High Priest alone entered once every year on the day of expiation. But since Christ was not descended from the tribe of Levi, He could not enter either of these parts of the temple.

But in front of the temple there was a Court or Vestibule; the upper part was the court of the Priests, the outer part, adjoining the inner court, was the court of the people, where they prayed and witnessed the sacrifices which were offered in the Court of the Priests. It was in this Court that Christ went to and fro and taught, and it had porticoes all round it, in which the people took shelter from the weather. Ribera ( de Templo, 1. 6) and others think that this was called Solomon's Porch. Others with Villalpandus, Maldonatus, &c., think more probably that this particular portico was called Solomon's as having been built by him long after the building of the temple, when the slope of the hill was levelled, and the portico was built at the eastern side of the temple. (See Josephus, B. Jud. vi. 6.) It was called Solomon's to distinguish it from the other porticoes which others added to the temple. Or else, as Baronius thinks, when the temple was burnt by the Chaldeans this portico alone remained, or else was rebuilt in the same form as that in which it had been erected by Solomon. (See on Act 3:11.)

Ver. 24.— Then came the Jews, &c. How long dost thou keep us in suspense? We wish to see the Messiah, and hope that Thou wilt declare Thyself to be He. They pretend this, in order to draw a confession from Christ, on which to accuse Him. For as says S. Augustine, "They do not desire the truth, but are getting up a charge, to accuse Him of making Himself the Messiah." So also S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius. But Christ so guarded His reply as not to give room for a false charge, and yet made it clear to the faithful that He was Christ the Son of God.

If thou art Christ, tell us plainly. That we may all be able to worship Thee openly as the Messiah. So did these hypocrites fulfil the predictions of David (Psa 22:16 and Psa 118:12). For, as S. Chrysostom says, "Christ spake everything openly, and said nothing secretly." And S. Augustine, "They sought to hear from Him that He was Christ, that so they might accuse Him of claiming kingly power."

Ver 25.— Jesus answered them, I told you, &c. I have told you plainly that I am the Messiah. But ye said, Thou bearest witness of Thyself. Thy witness is not true (Joh 8:15). But what I have said I constantly confirm by miracles. For I do them in the name, that is by the authority, will, and supernatural Power of God the Father. But ye continue obstinately in your unbelief, and falsely state that they are the works of the devil. How then will ye believe My words? So S. Chrysostom.

Ver. 26.— But ye believe not, &c. Ye will not submit to Me as your Shepherd, and accept Me as your Messiah. But ye rather wish Me to submit Myself to you, and to be My superiors, censors, and calumniators. It is ambition which makes you grudge Me the headship of the Church; and that ye refuse to believe Me. S. Augustine by "sheep" understands the elect. But this is not the proper nor the adequate cause of their rejecting Christ. For reprobation is not the cause, but rather the result of unbelief and sin. It was not that God had cast off the Jews that they sinned by unbelief. But it was because they chose to disbelieve and sin, that God cast them off. And it was not an adequate cause, because many of them who disbelieved in Him, believed in Him afterwards through the preaching of the apostles. And again some then believed in Christ who were not predestinated, but afterwards fell away into sin, as Judas and others.

Ver. 27. — My sheep hear my voice. He leaves the inference to them: but ye hear not my voice, and are therefore not My sheep. (See above, ver. 4.)

Ver. 28. — And I give unto them eternal life. The sheep of Christ are of two kinds: first, all Christians; and secondly, those alone who are predestinated to glory. The words of Christ relate to the second class. And S. Augustine shows why they do not perish. For they are of those sheep of whom it is said, "The Lord knoweth who are His." They are specially the sheep of Christ, none of whom perish. And yet of the former class Christ also says, "I give unto them eternal life," that is, as far as I may. I make them the promise. I give them all necessary helps. I wish for their salvation. If then any of them perish it is not My fault but theirs, for they will not co-operate with My grace. For neither the devil nor any one else is able to pluck them out of My hand, if they resolve to abide in it, and will not be torn away. For My grace, if they cooperate with it, has power to keep them from being taken from Me. But if they leave Me of their own will, it is not a tearing away, but their own voluntary act. So S. Cyril, Leontius, Theophylact, and Maldonatus. Christ means to say that no power can take them away, but they have full liberty to go away from Christ.

I give unto them eternal life, that is if they abide in faith and obedience to Me. I give it in this world through grace by hope, and I will hereafter give it in glory. He invites the Jews by this promise to become His sheep, and reproves them for refusing to do so. The faithful are in the "hand," that is under the protection and guardianship of Christ. This is signified by the hand, which ministers to the whole body (see S. Isidore, Etym. xi. 1).

Ver. 29.— My Father which gave them Me is greater than all (the Vulgate and Latin fathers read " majus," the Greek fathers μείξων ), and no one is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand. Because the Divine Nature which the Father gave Me, and its almighty power, is greater than all created beings, even angels and devils, and as no one can pluck them out of My Father's hand, so can they not pluck them out of My own, for the hand and the power of the Father and Myself are one and the same. (So S. Augustine, Bede, Maldonatus; and see S. Ambrose, de Spir. Sancto, iii. 18. S. Hilary, de Trin. lib. vii., and Tertullian, contra Praxeam ) . He says this against the Jews who regarded Him as a mere man, "Know then that the Eternal Father gave Me a Divine Nature and Personality far higher than any created nature, whether angels or men." Others explain it, that the sheep committed to Me by the Father must be more highly valued by Me than anything else; and no one can pluck them either out of My Father's hand, or out of My own hand. But the first explanation is both the most sublime, and most full of meaning.

S. Cyril explains it thus, "My Father has committed to Me, His Incarnate Son, the care of His sheep. As God I have equal power with Him, and as man My hand is strengthened by the Almighty Hand of the Father." Whence the Interlinear Gloss explains the word "hand" by "Me, who am the Hand of the Father." For as S. Augustine says, "men call their 'hands' those persons through whom they do what they wish." The two explanations come to the same thing.

Ver. 30.— I and My Father are one, not only by agreement and consent of will, as the Arians hold, but also one in Essence and Godhead, the same in number,^* not in species, for otherwise there would be more Gods than one. Christ speaks here as God and the Word of the Father. And from this the fathers prove His Godhead against the Arians. And the Jews understood the words in the same sense, and consequently sought to stone Him as a blasphemer. And Christ Himself explained them in the same sense, for He said, I am the Son of God. It is clear also from His line of argument, "being one with the Father I have the same Almighty power." For where the essence is the same, the power is also the same. So says S. Hilary ( de Trinit. lib. viii.), "The Father and the Son are One, not as He speaks of the faithful (in chap. xvii.), 'That they may be one,' but one in nature, honour, and power." "He steers between Scylla and Charybdis," says S. Augustine ( in loc. ) "between Arius and Sabellius; for by speaking of 'One' He signifies Oneness of nature. But by saying 'we are' He indicates a plurality of persons, which Sabellius denied, affirming that God was One in Person, as well as in Essence." S. Augustine says the same ( de Trinit. vi. 2). See Bellarmine ( de Christo, i. 6).

Ver. 31.— The Jews therefore look up stones to stone Him, as a blasphemer. The Jews show in this their hypocrisy, malignity, and hatred of Christ, and that they did not honestly, but craftily and insidiously, ask Him whether He were the Christ. But Christ as being God kept them from casting on Him the stones which they held in their hands. "Hard as stones," says S. Augustine, "they rushed to the stones." Mystically, says S. Hilary ( de Trinit. lib. vii), "And now also heretics hurl the stones of their words, to cast down, if they can, Christ from His throne; inspired, no doubt, by Lucifer, who aimed at obtaining this throne of Godhead, and therefore grudged it to Christ, and is active in taking it away by means of heretics."

Ver. 32. — Jesus answered, &c. He replied not to the words, for none had been spoken, but to the crafty intention of the Jews. He answered, i.e., He asked them for what cause do ye wish to stone Me? By works He means the miracles which He had wrought by the authority and supernatural aid of God the Father. And He thus quietly reproves their ingratitude and malignity. I have healed, He would say, your blind, and lame, and sick, by My Divine power, when destitute of all human aid; why do ye ungratefully repay My many kindnesses by evil treatment, and wish to stone Me?

Ver. 33. — The Jews answered, For a good work, &c. "The Jews" (says S. Augustine) "understood that which the Arians understand not. For they felt that it could not be said, 'I and the Father are one,' unless the Father and the Son were equal."

Ver. 34. — Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your 1aw ( Ps 82: 6), I said, Ye are gods? The word in Hebrew is plural. God is called Elohim, as ruling and governing the world, and as the judge and punisher of evil-doing. Whence angels and judges who share this power are called gods, not by nature or by hypostatical union (as Christ), but by participating in the Divine judgments (see Ex. vii. 1, xxii. 28; Psa 8:6, in the Hebrew Elohim). But there, as S. Hilary observes ( Lib. vii . de Trinit.), the word Elohim is limited by the context, so as to make it clear that the word does not signify God, but angels or judges. And so in Ps. lxxxii., "God standeth in the congregation of princes. He is the judge among gods." The gods who are judged are men or angels, He who judges them is the One True God. "Just as Christ here," says S. Augustine, "judges as God the Pharisees and rulers of the Jews, who were gods, so to speak, upon earth." On this account He quotes this psalm which is in Hebrew Elohim, judges. Elohim, the highest of all, judges the earthly rulers who are under Him. This is supported by the Chaldee Targum, which explains, "Ye are gods, and are all the children of the Highest;" "ye are the angels of the high God." And that which is properly said of angels is extended to all Israelites and the faithful, for they are the sons of God. But when the word "Elohim" is used "absolutely" (without limitation) it signifies the One and True God.

Christ therefore, instead of overthrowing the opinion of the Jews, rather confirms it.

Ver. 35. — If He called them gods unto whom the word of God came, whom the Word of God appointed judges and gave them authority by Moses and his successors, and commanded them to judge rightly as partaking His authority, making them (says Euthymius) gods, as it were, upon earth. And the Scripture cannot be broken : no one, i.e., can take from them the name of judges, which the irrevocable word of Scripture has given them.

Ver. 36. — Say ye of Him, &c. This is an argument from the less to the greater. "If judges, who only participate in the power of God, are rightly called gods, much more can I be called God, who am the Very Word of God."

S. Augustine and Bede more acutely, but less to the point, maintain that the force of the argument is this, if they who are merely partakers of the word of God are called gods, much more am I, who am not merely a partaker of the word of God, but the Word of God Itself

Note here that the words, "He whom the Father hath sanctified," have several meanings. (1.) He to whom the Father hath communicated the sanctity wherewith He is holy, whom the Father, when He begat Him, made to be holy, says S. Augustine. For God the Father who is holy begat the Son who is holy. So Bede, Toletus, and others. The Son is therefore holy in His generation and essence. (2.) The Father sanctified Christ as man, by means of the Hypostatical Union; for by this (speaking accurately) is the manhood of Christ sanctified in the highest degree. For by the very act wherewith the Person of the Word (Itself uncreated and infinite Sanctity) assumed the humanity, and united it hypostatically to Itself, It clearly sanctified it, and thus infused into its soul the pre-eminent sanctity of charity, grace, and all other virtues. And so S. Hilary says, "Jesus was sanctified to be His Son, since S. Paul says, 'He was predestinated to be the Son of God with power, by the Spirit of sanctification.'" And so too S. Chrysostom, and S. Athanasius ( de Incarn. Verb. sub. init. ) "Sanctified" is therefore the same as "sealed," as I said Joh 6:27. (3.) Theophylact says, "He sanctified, that is He sanctioned His sacrifice for the world, showing that He was not such a god as the others were; for to save the world is the work of God, not of a man deified by grace. As Christ says (xvii. 19), I sanctify Myself, i.e., I sacrifice Myself, I offer Myself as a holy Victim." (4.) Maldonatus says: "He sanctified Me, i.e., He designated and destined Me to the office of Saviour," referring to Jer. i. 5, though the truer meaning of the passage is different, as I have there stated.

Ver. 37.— If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. He appeals to the miracles which He wrought by the command and supernatural power of God the Father. For these, as being divine, proved Him to be the very Son of God.

Ver. 38. — But if I do, &c., and I in the Father, working by the same Godhead and omnipotence which I have received from Him. Accordingly S. Augustine, Cyril, Leontius, &c., consider that the words, "I in the Father and the Father in Me," mean the same as "I and the Father are one." S. Augustine says ( in loc.), "We are in God, and God in us. But can we say, 'I and God are one?' Thou art in God, because God containeth thee; God is in thee, because thou art made the temple of God. But because thou art in God, and God in thee, canst thou therefore say, 'He who seeth God seeth Me,' as the only Begotten said, 'He that seeth Me, seeth the Father also, and I and the Father are one?' Recognise what is proper to the Lord, and also the duty of the servant. What is proper to the Lord is equality with the Father; the duty of the servant is to be partaker of the Saviour."

Ver. 39. — The Jews therefore sought again to take Him, but He escaped out of their hands. "That their anger might be appeased by His withdrawal," says S. Chrysostom. S. Augustine, acutely but symbolically, "They took Him not, because they had not the hand of faith." He escaped by His Divine Power, making Himself invisible. As He did, Joh 8:59.

Ver. 40.— And went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized. In Bethabara, or Bethania, where Christ was baptized by him. He afterwards baptized in Ænon (see Joh 3:23), frequently shifting His abode. He went through other districts of Jordan, He withdrew to Bethabara, that the people who followed Him thither might call to mind the testimony which John had borne to Him on the very spot, and also the testimony of God the Father at His baptism, and might on this account believe in Him. So S. Chrysostom.

And there abode : till the Passover and his own Passion drew nigh, when He returned to Jerusalem, and raised up Lazarus, which provoked the scribes and rulers against Him.

Ver. 41. — And many resorted, &c. And yet we believed him. Therefore we ought the more firmly to believe in Jesus, who proves that He is the Messiah by so many signs and miracles. So S. Chrysostom.

There was also another reason for their believing in Christ; namely, that they found Him to be mightier than John in His miracles, in the power of His discourses, in His holiness of life, as John had foretold. And hence they inferred, If we see that the other things which John spake of Him are true, it is therefore equally true (as he said) that Jesus was the Messiah.

Ver. 41 . — An

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: John (Book Introduction)

THE Fourth Gospel

By Way of Introduction

Greatest of Books

The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke’s Gospel is the most beautiful, John’s Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find The Heart of Christ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters John 14-17. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.

The Beloved Disciple

The book claims to be written by " the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh_21:20) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: " This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (Joh_21:24). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with Joh_20:31, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in Joh_21:24 is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in The Beloved Disciple (1922).

A Personal Witness

It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In Joh_1:14 he plainly says that " the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" ( etheasametha tēn doxan autou ). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in Joh_21:25 he employs the singular " I suppose" ( oimai ) in sharp distinction from the plural " we know" ( oidamen ) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness ( marturě , marturia ) so common in this Gospel (Joh_1:7, Joh_1:8, Joh_1:19; Joh_3:11, Joh_3:26, Joh_3:33; Joh_5:31; Joh_12:17; Joh_21:24, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luk_1:1-4). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark’s Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John’s Gospel claims to be the personal witness of " the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eyewitness in the vivid details.

With a Home in Jerusalem

It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus " to his own home" ( eis ta idia , Joh_19:27) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (Joh_18:15.). Delff ( Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt , 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (Joh_7:45-52; Joh_11:47-53; Joh_12:10.). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (Joh_13:23). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Joh_21:1.) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the " Beloved Disciple" (Joh_21:20).

Only One John of Ephesus

It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa a.d. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase " the Elder John " ( ho presbuteros Iōannēs ) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by " the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. " Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord’s Life" (Bousset, Die Offenbarumg des Joh. , p. 38, translation of Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist , p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

No Early Martyrdom for the Apostle John

In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the Codex Coislinianus , Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews ( hupo Ioudaiōn anēirethē ) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace ( en eirēnēi anepausato ). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mar_10:39; Mat_20:23) and realized by James first of all (Act_12:1.). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in Joh_21:20-23 would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.

The Author the Apostle John

Loisy ( Le Quatr. Evangile , p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it " literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a nom de plume . Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author’s name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter John 21 it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Act_12:1). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

Early and Clear Witness to the Apostle John

Ignatius ( ad Philad . vii. 1) about a.d. 110 says of the Spirit that " he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to Joh_3:8. Polycarp ( ad Phil . S 7) quotes 1Jo_4:2, 1Jo_4:3. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell " of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his Diatessaron out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch ( ad Autol . ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about a.d. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

The Use of the Synoptic Gospels

As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (Joh_2:23; Joh_6:4) and another (Joh_5:1) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord’s public ministry (" the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John 1:19-4:45). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John 1:1-18) relates the Incarnation to God’s eternal purpose as in Col_1:14-20 and Heb_1:1-3 and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time ( Logos - Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

A Different Style of Teaching

So different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon’s Memorabilia and of Plato’s Dialogues . There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters John 7-11. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Mat_11:25-30; Luk_10:21-24). The use of " the Father" and " the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

The Same Style in the Discourses

It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John’s Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, Joh_3:16-21. Does the discourse of Jesus end with Joh_3:15, Joh_3:16, or Joh_3:21? So in Joh_12:44-50. Does John give here a resumé of Christ’s teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John’s Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel

It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his Diatessaron , the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter John 11 which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke’s account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in Matt 23, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter John 21 with that in Luke 5, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter John 12 the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in Luke 7, making John’s Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter John 1 is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910).

Like the Johannine Epistles

Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as " the Elder" ( ho presbuteros ), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical " Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself " the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Pe_5:1) he calls himself " your fellow-elder" ( ho sunpresbuteros ). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in 1Jo_1:1-4 and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the aeon Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in 1Jo_2:22. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

But Different from the Apocalypse

It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Rev_1:4, Rev_1:9; Rev_22:8), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a " Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton ( Prolegomena , p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: " If its date was 95 a.d., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. So one ventures to call attention to the statement in Act_4:13 where Peter and John are described as agrammatoi kai idiōtai (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John’s friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan’s Greek Papyri , for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton’s dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

The Unity of the Gospel

This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, John 1:1-18, the Body of the Book, John 1:19-20:31, the Epilogue, John 21. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at Joh_20:31 and then added John 21 before sending the book forth after his friends added Joh_21:24 as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.

Original Language of the Book

The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume called, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922) in which he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the Koiné Greek of his time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.

The Purpose of the Book

He tells us himself in Joh_20:30. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: " But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

John’s Portrait of Christ

No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: " And the Word was God" (Joh_1:1) and in the correct text of Joh_1:18, " God only begotten" ( theos monogenēs ). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: " This is the Son of God" (Joh_1:34). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (Joh_5:18) and the claim of Christ himself (Joh_5:20-23; Joh_6:48; Joh_8:12, Joh_8:58; Joh_11:25; Joh_14:9; Joh_17:5) with the full and frank conviction of the author in Joh_20:31. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term theos applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my The Christ of the Logia (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ’s crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly ( Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah , 1900; St. John’s Portrait of Christ , 1910).

JFB: John (Book Introduction)

THE author of the Fourth Gospel was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, who resided at Bethsaida, where were born Peter and Andrew his brother, and Philip also. His mother's name was Salome, who, though not without her imperfections (Mat 20:20-28), was one of those dear and honored women who accompanied the Lord on one of His preaching circuits through Galilee, ministering to His bodily wants; who followed Him to the cross, and bought sweet spices to anoint Him after His burial, but, on bringing them to the grave, on the morning of the First Day of the week, found their loving services gloriously superseded by His resurrection ere they arrived. His father, Zebedee, appears to have been in good circumstances, owning a vessel of his own and having hired servants (Mar 1:20). Our Evangelist, whose occupation was that of a fisherman with his father, was beyond doubt a disciple of the Baptist, and one of the two who had the first interview with Jesus. He was called while engaged at his secular occupation (Mat 4:21-22), and again on a memorable occasion (Luk 5:1-11), and finally chosen as one of the Twelve Apostles (Mat 10:2). He was the youngest of the Twelve--the "Benjamin," as DA COSTA calls him--and he and James his brother were named in the native tongue by Him who knew the heart, "Boanerges," which the Evangelist Mark (Mar 3:17) explains to mean "Sons of thunder"; no doubt from their natural vehemence of character. They and Peter constituted that select triumvirate of whom see on Luk 9:28. But the highest honor bestowed on this disciple was his being admitted to the bosom place with his Lord at the table, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh 13:23; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 20:24), and to have committed to him by the dying Redeemer the care of His mother (Joh 19:26-27). There can be no reasonable doubt that this distinction was due to a sympathy with His own spirit and mind on the part of John which the all-penetrating Eye of their common Master beheld in none of the rest; and although this was probably never seen either in his life or in his ministry by his fellow apostles, it is brought out wonderfully in his writings, which, in Christ-like spirituality, heavenliness, and love, surpass, we may freely say, all the other inspired writings.

After the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we find him in constant but silent company with Peter, the great spokesman and actor in the infant Church until the accession of Paul. While his love to the Lord Jesus drew him spontaneously to the side of His eminent servant, and his chastened vehemence made him ready to stand courageously by him, and suffer with him, in all that his testimony to Jesus might cost him, his modest humility, as the youngest of all the apostles, made him an admiring listener and faithful supporter of his brother apostle rather than a speaker or separate actor. Ecclesiastical history is uniform in testifying that John went to Asia Minor; but it is next to certain that this could not have been till after the death both of Peter and Paul; that he resided at Ephesus, whence, as from a center, he superintended the churches of that region, paying them occasional visits; and that he long survived the other apostles. Whether the mother of Jesus died before this, or went with John to Ephesus, where she died and was buried, is not agreed. One or two anecdotes of his later days have been handed down by tradition, one at least bearing marks of reasonable probability. But it is not necessary to give them here. In the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) he was banished to "the isle that is called Patmos" (a small rocky and then almost uninhabited island in the Ægean Sea), "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:9). IRENÆUS and EUSEBIUS say that this took place about the end of Domitian's reign. That he was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, and miraculously delivered, is one of those legends which, though reported by TERTULLIAN and JEROME, is entitled to no credit. His return from exile took place during the brief but tolerant reign of Nerva; he died at Ephesus in the reign of Trajan [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.23], at an age above ninety, according to some; according to others, one hundred; and even one hundred twenty, according to others still. The intermediate number is generally regarded as probably the nearest to the truth.

As to the date of this Gospel, the arguments for its having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem (though relied on by some superior critics) are of the slenderest nature; such as the expression in Joh 5:2, "there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool," &c.; there being no allusion to Peter's martyrdom as having occurred according to the prediction in Joh 21:18 --a thing too well known to require mention. That it was composed long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and after the decease of all the other apostles, is next to certain, though the precise time cannot be determined. Probably it was before his banishment, however; and if we date it between the years 90 and 94, we shall probably be close to the truth.

As to the readers for whom it was more immediately designed, that they were Gentiles we might naturally presume from the lateness of the date; but the multitude of explanations of things familiar to every Jew puts this beyond all question.

No doubt was ever thrown upon the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel till about the close of the eighteenth century; nor were these embodied in any formal attack upon it till BRETSCHNEIDER, in 1820, issued his famous treatise [Probabilia], the conclusions of which he afterwards was candid enough to admit had been satisfactorily disproved. To advert to these would be as painful as unnecessary; consisting as they mostly do of assertions regarding the Discourses of our Lord recorded in this Gospel which are revolting to every spiritual mind. The Tubingen school did their best, on their peculiar mode of reasoning, to galvanize into fresh life this theory of the post-Joannean date of the Fourth Gospel; and some Unitarian critics still cling to it. But to use the striking language of VAN OOSTERZEE regarding similar speculations on the Third Gospel, "Behold, the feet of them that shall carry it out dead are already at the door" (Act 5:9). Is there one mind of the least elevation of spiritual discernment that does not see in this Gospel marks of historical truth and a surpassing glory such as none of the other Gospels possess, brightly as they too attest their own verity; and who will not be ready to say that if not historically true, and true just as it stands, it never could have been by mortal man composed or conceived?

Of the peculiarities of this Gospel, we note here only two. The one is its reflective character. While the others are purely narrative, the Fourth Evangelist, "pauses, as it were, at every turn," as DA COSTA says [Four Witnesses, p. 234], "at one time to give a reason, at another to fix the attention, to deduce consequences, or make applications, or to give utterance to the language of praise." See Joh 2:20-21, Joh 2:23-25; Joh 4:1-2; Joh 7:37-39; Joh 11:12-13, Joh 11:49-52; Joh 21:18-19, Joh 21:22-23. The other peculiarity of this Gospel is its supplementary character. By this, in the present instance, we mean something more than the studiousness with which he omits many most important particulars in our Lord's history, for no conceivable reason but that they were already familiar as household words to all his readers, through the three preceding Gospels, and his substituting in place of these an immense quantity of the richest matter not found in the other Gospels. We refer here more particularly to the nature of the additions which distinguish this Gospel; particularly the notices of the different Passovers which occurred during our Lord's public ministry, and the record of His teaching at Jerusalem, without which it is not too much to say that we could have had but a most imperfect conception either of the duration of His ministry or of the plan of it. But another feature of these additions is quite as noticeable and not less important. "We find," to use again the words of DA COSTA [Four Witnesses, pp. 238, 239], slightly abridged, "only six of our Lord's miracles recorded in this Gospel, but these are all of the most remarkable kind, and surpass the rest in depth, specialty of application, and fulness of meaning. Of these six we find only one in the other three Gospels--the multiplication of the loaves. That miracle chiefly, it would seem, on account of the important instructions of which it furnished the occasion (John 6:1-71), is here recorded anew. The five other tokens of divine power are distinguished from among the many recorded in the three other Gospels by their furnishing a still higher display of power and command over the ordinary laws and course of nature. Thus we find recorded here the first of all the miracles that Jesus wrought--the changing of water into wine (Joh 2:1-11), the cure of the nobleman's son at a distance (Joh 4:43-54); of the numerous cures of the lame and the paralytic by the word of Jesus, only one--of the man impotent for thirty and eight years (Joh 5:1-9); of the many cures of the blind, one only--of the man born blind (Joh 9:1-12); the restoration of Lazarus, not from a deathbed, like Jairus' daughter, nor from a bier, like the widow of Nain's son, but from the grave, and after lying there four days, and there sinking into corruption (John 11:1-44); and lastly, after His resurrection, the miraculous draught of fishes on the Sea of Tiberias (Joh 21:5-11). But these are all recorded chiefly to give occasion for the record of those astonishing discourses and conversations, alike with friends and with foes, with His disciples and with the multitude which they drew forth."

Other illustrations of the peculiarities of this Gospel will occur, and other points connected with it be adverted to, in the course of the Commentary.

JFB: John (Outline)

• THE WORD MADE FLESH. (Joh 1:1-14)
• A SAYING OF THE BAPTIST CONFIRMATORY OF THIS. (Joh 1:15)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. (Joh 1:16-18)
• THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY TO CHRIST. (John 1:19-36)
• FIRST GATHERING OF DISCIPLES--JOHN ANDREW, SIMON, PHILIP, NATHANAEL. (Joh 1:37-51)
• FIRST MIRACLE, WATER MADE WINE--BRIEF VISIT TO CAPERNAUM. (Joh 2:1-12)
• CHRIST'S FIRST PASSOVER--FIRST CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. (Joh 2:13-25)
• NIGHT INTERVIEW OF NICODEMUS WITH JESUS. (John 3:1-21)
• JESUS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE BAPTIST--HIS NOBLE TESTIMONY TO HIS MASTER. (John 3:22-36)
• CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA--THE SAMARITANS OF SYCHAR. (John 4:1-42)
• SECOND GALILEAN MIRACLE--HEALING OF THE COURTIER'S SON. (Joh 4:43-54)
• THE IMPOTENT MAN HEALED--DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE PERSECUTION ARISING THEREUPON. (John 5:1-47)
• FIVE THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED. (Joh 6:1-13)
• JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA. (Joh 6:14-21)
• JESUS FOLLOWED BY THE MULTITUDES TO CAPERNAUM, DISCOURSES TO THEM IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF THE BREAD OF LIFE--EFFECT OF THIS ON TWO CLASSES OF THE DISCIPLES. (John 6:22-71) These verses are a little involved, from the Evangelist's desire to mention every circumstance, however minute, that might call up the scene as vividly to the reader as it stood before his own view.
• CHRIST AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. (John 7:1-53)
• THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY. (Joh 8:1-11)
• FURTHER DISCOURSES OF JESUS--ATTEMPT TO STONE HIM. (John 8:12-59)
• THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF ONE BORN BLIND, AND WHAT FOLLOWED ON IT. (John 9:1-41)
• THE GOOD SHEPHERD. (John 10:1-21)
• DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION--FROM THE FURY OF HIS ENEMIES JESUS ESCAPES BEYOND JORDAN, WHERE MANY BELIEVE ON HIM. (John 10:22-42)
• LAZARUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD--THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS. (John 11:1-46)
• THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY. (Joh 12:1-11)
• CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. (Joh 12:12-19)
• SOME GREEKS DESIRE TO SEE JESUS--THE DISCOURSE AND SCENE THEREUPON. (John 12:20-36)
• AT THE LAST SUPPER JESUS WASHES THE DISCIPLES' FEET--THE DISCOURSE ARISING THEREUPON. (John 13:1-20)
• THE TRAITOR INDICATED--HE LEAVES THE SUPPER ROOM. (Joh 13:21-30)
• DISCOURSE AFTER THE TRAITOR'S DEPARTURE--PETER'S SELF-CONFIDENCE--HIS FALL PREDICTED. (Joh 13:31-38)
• DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE, AFTER SUPPER. (John 14:1-31)
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONTINUED. (John 15:1-27) The spiritual oneness of Christ and His people, and His relation to them as the Source of all their spiritual life and fruitfulness, are here beautifully set forth by a figure familiar to Jewish ears (Isa 5:1, &c.).
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONCLUDED. (John 16:1-33)
• THE INTERCESSORY PRAYER. (John 17:1-26)
• BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. (Joh 18:1-13)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE. (Joh 18:28-40)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE--SCOURGED--TREATED WITH OTHER SEVERITIES AND INSULTS--DELIVERED UP, AND LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (John 19:1-16)
• CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS. (Joh 19:17-30)
• BURIAL OF CHRIST. (Joh 19:31-42)
• MARY'S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE, AND RETURN TO IT WITH PETER AND JOHN--HER RISEN LORD APPEARS TO HER. (John 20:1-18)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:19-23)
• JESUS AGAIN APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:24-29)
• FIRST CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 20:30-31)
• SUPPLEMENTARY PARTICULARS. (John 21:1-23)
• FINAL CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 21:24-25)
• JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Joh 18:13-27)

TSK: John (Book Introduction)

John, who, according to the unanimous testimony of the ancient fathers and ecclesiastical writers, was the author of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida, by Salome his wife (compare Mat 10:2, with Mat 27:55, Mat 27:56 and Mar 15:40), and brother of James the elder, whom " Herod killed with the sword," (Act 12:2). Theophylact says that Salome was the daughter of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by a former wife; and that consequently she was our Lord’s sister, and John was his nephew. He followed the occupation of his father till his call to the apostleship (Mat 4:21, Mat 4:22, Mar 1:19, Mar 1:20, Luk 5:1-10), which is supposed to have been when he was about twenty five years of age; after which he was a constant eye-witness of our Lord’s labours, journeyings, discourses, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. After the ascension of our Lord he returned with the other apostles to Jerusalem, and with the rest partook of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by which he was eminently qualified for the office of an Evangelist and Apostle. After the death of Mary, the mother of Christ, which is supposed to have taken place about fifteen years after the crucifixion, and probably after the council held in Jerusalem about ad 49 or 50 (Acts 15), at which he was present, he is said by ecclesiastical writers to have proceeded to Asia Minor, where he formed and presided over seven churches in as many cities, but chiefly resided at Ephesus. Thence he was banished by the emperor Domitian, in the fifteenth year of his reign, ad 95, to the isle of Patmos in the Agean sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse (Rev 1:9). On the accession of Nerva the following year, he was recalled from exile and returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, and died in the hundredth year of his age, about ad 100, and in the third year of the emperor Trajan. It is generally believed that St. John was the youngest of the twelve apostles, and that he survived all the rest. Jerome, in his comment on Gal VI., says that he continued preaching when so enfeebled with age as to be obliged to be carried into the assembly; and that, not being able to deliver any long discourse, his custom was to say in every meeting, My dear children, love one another. The general current of ancient writers declares that the apostle wrote his Gospel at an advanced period of life, with which the internal evidence perfectly agrees; and we may safely refer it, with Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Mill, Lev. Clerc, and others, to the year 97. The design of St. John in writing his Gospel is said by some to have been to supply those important events which the other Evangelists had omitted, and to refute the notions of the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, or according to others, to refute the heresy of the Gnostics and Sabians. But, though many parts of his Gospel may be successfully quoted against the strange doctrines held by those sects, yet the apostle had evidently a more general end in view than the confutation of their heresies. His own words sufficiently inform us of his motive and design in writing this Gospel: " These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name" (Joh 20:31). Learned men are not wholly agreed concerning the language in which this Gospel was originally written. Salmasius, Grotius, and other writers, have imagined that St. John wrote it in his own native tongue, the Aramean or Syriac, and that it was afterwards translated into Greek. This opinion is not supported by any strong arguments, and is contradicted by the unanimous voice of antiquity, which affirms that he wrote it in Greek, which is the general and most probable opinion. The style of this Gospel indicates a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education; but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths. One thing very remarkable is an attempt to impress important truths more strongly on the minds of his readers, by employing in the expression of them both an affirmative proposition and a negative. It is manifestly not without design that he commonly passes over those passages of our Lord’s history and teaching which had been treated at large by other Evangelists, or if he touches them at all, he touches them but slightly, whilst he records many miracles which had been overlooked by the rest, and expatiates on the sublime doctrines of the pre-existence, the divinity, and the incarnation of the Word, the great ends of His mission, and the blessings of His purchase.

TSK: John 10 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Joh 10:1, Christ is the door, and the good shepherd; Joh 10:19, Divers opinions of him; Joh 10:23, He proves by his works that he is Christ the Son of God; Joh 10:31, escapes the Jews; Joh 10:39, and goes again beyond Jordan, where many believe on him.

Poole: John 10 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 10

MHCC: John (Book Introduction)

The apostle and evangelist, John, seems to have been the youngest of the twelve. He was especially favoured with our Lord's regard and confidence, so as to be spoken of as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was very sincerely attached to his Master. He exercised his ministry at Jerusalem with much success, and outlived the destruction of that city, agreeably to Christ's prediction, Joh 21:22. History relates that after the death of Christ's mother, John resided chiefly at Ephesus. Towards the close of Domitian's reign he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. On the accession of Nerva, he was set at liberty, and returned to Ephesus, where it is thought he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, about A. D. 97, and died soon after. The design of this Gospel appears to be to convey to the Christian world, just notions of the real nature, office, and character of that Divine Teacher, who came to instruct and to redeem mankind. For this purpose, John was directed to select for his narrative, those passages of our Saviour's life, which most clearly displayed his Divine power and authority; and those of his discourses, in which he spake most plainly of his own nature, and of the power of his death, as an atonement for the sins of the world. By omitting, or only briefly mentioning, the events recorded by the other evangelists, John gave testimony that their narratives are true, and left room for the doctrinal statements already mentioned, and for particulars omitted in the other Gospels, many of which are exceedingly important.

MHCC: John 10 (Chapter Introduction)

(Joh 10:1-5) The parable of the good shepherd.

(Joh 10:6-9) Christ the Door.

(Joh 10:10-18) Christ the good Shepherd.

(Joh 10:19-21) The Jews' opinion concerning Jesus.

(Joh 10:22-30) His discourse at the feast of dedication.

(Joh 10:31-38) The Jews attempt to stone Jesus.

(Joh 10:39-42) He departs from Jerusalem.

Matthew Henry: John (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. John

It is not material to enquire when and where this gospel was written; we are sure that it was given by inspiration of God to John, the brother of James, one of the twelve apostles, distinguished by the honourable character of that disciple whom Jesus loved, one of the first three of the worthies of the Son of David, whom he took to be the witnesses of his retirements, particularly of his transfiguration and his agony. The ancients tell us that John lived longest of all the twelve apostles, and was the only one of them that died a natural death, all the rest suffering martyrdom; and some of them say that he wrote this gospel at Ephesus, at the request of the ministers of the several churches of Asia, in opposition to the heresy of Corinthus and the Ebionites, who held that our Lord was a mere man. It seems most probable that he wrote it before his banishment into the isle of Patmos, for there he wrote his Apocalypse, the close of which seems designed for the closing up of the canon of scripture; and, if so, this gospel was not written after. I cannot therefore give credit to those later fathers, who say that he wrote it in his banishment, or after his return from it, many years after the destruction of Jerusalem; when he was ninety years old, saith one of them; when he was a hundred, saith another of them. However, it is clear that he wrote last of the four evangelists, and, comparing his gospel with theirs, we may observe, 1. That he relates what they had omitted; he brings up the rear, and his gospel is as the rearward or gathering host; it gleans up what they has passed by. Thus there was a later collection of Solomon's wise sayings (Pro 25:1), and yet far short of what he delivered, 1Ki 4:32. 2. That he gives us more of the mystery of that of which the other evangelists gave us only the history. It was necessary that the matters of fact should be first settled, which was done in their declarations of those things which Jesus began both to do and teach, Luk 1:1; Act 1:1. But, this being done out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, John goes on to perfection (Heb 6:1), not laying again the foundation, but building upon it, leading us more within the veil. Some of the ancients observe that the other evangelists wrote more of the ta sōmatika - the bodily things of Christ; but John writes of the ta pneumatika - the spiritual things of the gospel, the life and soul of it; therefore some have called this gospel the key of the evangelists. Here is it that a door is opened in heaven, and the first voice we hear is, Come up hither, come up higher. Some of the ancients, that supposed the four living creatures in John's vision to represent the for evangelists, make John himself to be the flying eagle, so high does he soar, and so clearly does he see into divine and heavenly things.

Matthew Henry: John 10 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's parabolical discourse concerning himself as the door of the sheepfold, and the shepherd of the sheep (v. 1-18). II. The various sentiments of people upon it (Joh 10:19-21). III. The dispute Christ had with the Jews in the temple at the feast of dedication (v. 22-39). IV. His departure into the country thereupon (Joh 10:40-42).

Barclay: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT JOHN

The Gospel Of The EagleEye

For many Christian people the Gospel according to St. John is the most precious book in the New Testament. It is the book on which above all they feed their minds and nourish their hearts, and in which they rest their souls. Very often on stained glass windows and the like the gospel writers are represented in symbol by the figures of the four beasts whom the writer of the Revelation saw around the throne (Rev_4:7 ). The emblems are variously distributed among the gospel writers, but a common allocation is that the man stands for Mark, which is the plainest, the most straightforward and the most human of the gospels; the lion stands for Matthew, for he specially saw Jesus as the Messiah and the Lion of the tribe of Judah; the ox stands for Luke, because it is the animal of service and sacrifice, and Luke saw Jesus as the great servant of men and the universal sacrifice for all mankind; the eagle stands for John, because it alone of all living creatures can look straight into the sun and not be dazzled, and John has the most penetrating gaze of all the New Testament writers into the eternal mysteries and the eternal truths and the very mind of God. Many people find themselves closer to God and to Jesus Christ in John than in any other book in the world.

The Gospel That Is Different

But we have only to read the Fourth Gospel in the most cursory way to see that it is quite different from the other three. It omits so many things that they include. The Fourth Gospel has no account of the Birth of Jesus, of his baptism, of his temptations; it tells us nothing of the Last Supper, nothing of Gethsemane, and nothing of the Ascension. It has no word of the healing of any people possessed by devils and evil spirits. And, perhaps most surprising of all, it has none of the parable stories Jesus told which are so priceless a part of the other three gospels. In these other three gospels Jesus speaks either in these wonderful stories or in short, epigrammatic, vivid sentences which stick in the memory. But in the Fourth Gospel the speeches of Jesus are often a whole chapter long; and are often involved, argumentative pronouncements quite unlike the pithy, unforgettable sayings of the other three.

Even more surprising, the account in the Fourth Gospel of the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus is often different from that in the other three.

(i) John has a different account of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. In the other three gospels it is quite definitely stated that Jesus did not emerge as a preacher until after John the Baptist had been imprisoned. "Now after John was arrested Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God" (Mar_1:14 ; Luk_3:18 , Luk_3:20 ; Mat_4:12 ). But in John there is a quite considerable period during which the ministry of Jesus over-lapped with the activity of John the Baptist (Joh_3:22-30 ; Joh_4:1-2 ).

(ii) John has a different account of the scene of Jesusinistry. In the other three gospels the main scene of the ministry is Galilee and Jesus does not reach Jerusalem until the last week of his life. In John the main scene of the ministry is Jerusalem and Judaea, with only occasional withdrawals to Galilee (Joh_2:1-13 ; Joh_4:35 through Joh_5:1 ; Joh_6:1 through Joh_7:14 ). In John, Jesus is in Jerusalem for a Passover which occurred at the same time as the cleansing of the Temple, as John tells the story (Joh_2:13 ); he is in Jerusalem at the time of an unnamed feast (Joh_5:1 ); he is there for the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:2 , Joh_7:10 ); he is there at the Feast of Dedication in the winter-time (Joh_10:22 ). In fact according to the Fourth Gospel Jesus never left Jerusalem after that feast; after Jn 10 he is in Jerusalem all the time, which would mean a stay of months, from the winter-time of the Feast of the Dedication to the spring-time of the Passover at which he was crucified.

In point of fact in this particular matter John is surely right. The other gospels show us Jesus mourning over Jerusalem as the last week came on. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Mat_23:37 ; Luk_13:34 ). It is clear that Jesus could not have said that unless he had paid repeated visits to Jerusalem and made repeated appeals to it. It was impossible for him to say that on a first visit. In this John is unquestionably right.

It was in fact this difference of scene which provided Eusebius with one of the earliest explanations of the difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three. He said that in his day (about A.D. 300) many people who were scholars held the following view. Matthew at first preached to the Hebrew people. The day came when he had to leave them and to go to other nations. Before he went he set down his story of the life of Jesus in Hebrew, "and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence." After Mark and Luke had published their gospels, John was still preaching the story of Jesus orally. "Finally he proceeded to write for the following reason. The three gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his hands too, they say that he fully accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.... They therefore say that John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of the deeds done before the imprisonment of John the Baptist.... John therefore records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.... The Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life." (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 5: 24.)

So then according to Eusebius there is no contradiction at all between the Fourth Gospel and the other three; the difference is due to the fact that the Fourth Gospel is describing a ministry in Jerusalem, at least in its earlier chapters, which preceded the ministry in Galilee, and which took place while John the Baptist was still at liberty. It may well be that this explanation of Eusebius is at least in part correct.

(iii) John has a different account of the duration of Jesusinistry. The other three gospels, on the face of it, imply that it lasted only one year. Within the ministry there is only one Passover Feast. In John there are three Passovers, one at the Cleansing of the Temple (Joh_2:13 ); one near the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Joh_6:4 ); and the final Passover at which Jesus went to the Cross. According to John the ministry of Jesus would take a minimum of two years, and probably a period nearer three years, to cover its events. Again John is unquestionably right. If we read the other three gospels closely and carefully we can see that he is right. When the disciples plucked the ears of corn (Mar_2:23 ) it must have been spring-time. When the five thousand were fed, they sat down on the green grass (Mar_6:39 ); therefore it was spring-time again, and there must have been a year between the two events. There follows the tour through Tyre and Sidon, and the Transfiguration. At the Transfiguration Peter wished to build three booths and to stay there. It is most natural to think that it was the time of the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths and that that is why Peter made the suggestion (Mar_9:5 ). That would make the date early in October. There follows the space between that and the last Passover in April. Therefore, behind the narrative of the other three gospels lies the fact that Jesusinistry actually did last for at least three years, as John represents it.

(iv) It sometimes even happens that John differs in matters of fact from the other three. There are two outstanding examples. First, John puts the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesusinistry (Joh_2:13-22 ), the others put it at the end (Mar_11:15-17 ; Mat_21:12-13 ; Luk_19:45-46 ). Second, when we come to study the narratives in detail, we will see that John dates the crucifixion of Jesus on the day before the Passover, while the other gospels date it on the day of the Passover.

We can never shut our eyes to the obvious differences between John and the other gospels.

JohnSpecial Knowledge

One thing is certain--if John differs from the other three gospels, it is not because of ignorance and lack of information. The plain fact is that, if he omits much that they tell us, he also tells us much that they do not mention. John alone tells of the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:1-11 ); of the coming of Nicodemus to Jesus (Joh_3:1-15 ); of the woman of Samaria Jn 4 ; of the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11 ); of the way in which Jesus washed his discipleseet (Joh_13:1-17 ); of Jesusonderful teaching about the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, which is scattered through Jn 14 Jn 15 Jn 16 and Jn 17 . It is only in John that some of the disciples really come alive. It is in John alone that Thomas speaks (Joh_11:16 ; Joh_14:5 ; Joh_20:24-29 ); that Andrew becomes a real personality (Joh_1:40-41 ; Joh_6:8-9 ; Joh_12:22 ); that we get a glimpse of the character of Philip (Joh_6:5-7 ; Joh_14:8-9 ); that we hear the carping protest of Judas at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:4-5 ). And the strange thing is that these little extra touches are intensely revealing. Johnpictures of Thomas and Andrew and Philip are like little cameos or vignettes in which the character of each man is etched in a way we cannot forget.

Further, again and again John has little extra details which read like the memories of one who was there. The loaves which the lad brought to Jesus were barley loaves (Joh_6:9 ); when Jesus came to the disciples as they crossed the lake in the storm they had rowed between three and four miles (Joh_6:19 ); there were six stone waterpots at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:6 ); it is only John who tells of the four soldiers gambling for the seamless robe as Jesus died (Joh_19:23 ); he knows the exact weight of the myrrh and aloes which were used to anoint the dead body of Jesus (Joh_19:39 ); he remembers how the perfume of the ointment filled the house at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:3 ). Many of these things are such apparently unimportant details that they are inexplicable unless they are the memories of a man who was there.

However much John may differ from the other three gospels, that difference is not to be explained by ignorance but rather by the fact that he had more knowledge or better sources or a more vivid memory than the others.

Further evidence of the specialised information of the writer of the Fourth Gospel is his detailed knowledge of Palestine and of Jerusalem. He knows how long it took to build the Temple (Joh_2:20 ); that the Jews and the Samaritans had a permanent quarrel (Joh_4:9 ); the low Jewish view of women (Joh_4:9 ); the way in which the Jews regard the Sabbath (Joh_5:10 ; Joh_7:21-23 ; Joh_9:14 ). His knowledge of the geography of Palestine is intimate. He knows of two Bethanys, one of which is beyond Jordan (Joh_1:28 ; Joh_12:1 ); he knows that Bethsaida was the home of some of the disciples (Joh_1:44 ; Joh_12:21 ); that Cana is in Galilee (Joh_2:1 ; Joh_4:46 ; Joh_21:2 ); that Sychar is near Shechem (Joh_4:5 ). He has what one might call a street by street knowledge of Jerusalem. He knows the sheep-gate and the pool near it (Joh_5:2 ); the pool of Siloam (Joh_9:7 ); SolomonPorch (Joh_10:23 ); the brook Kidron (Joh_18:1 ); the pavement which is called Gabbatha (Joh_19:13 ); Golgotha, which is like a skull (Joh_19:17 ). It must be remembered that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 and that John did not write until A.D. 100 or thereby; and yet from his memory he knows Jerusalem like the back of his hand.

The Circumstances In Which John Wrote

We have seen that there are very real differences between the Fourth and the other three gospels; and we have seen that, whatever the reason, it was not lack of knowledge on Johnpart. We must now go on to ask, What was the aim with which John wrote? If we can discover this we will discover why he selected and treated his facts as he did.

The Fourth Gospel was written in Ephesus about the year A.D. 100. By that time two special features had emerged in the situation of the Christian church. First, Christianity had gone out into the Gentile world. By that time the Christian church was no longer predominantly Jewish; it was in fact overwhelmingly gentile. The vast majority of its members now came, not from a Jewish, but an Hellenistic background. That being so, Christianity had to be restated. It was not that the truth of Christianity had changed; but the terms and the categories in which it found expression had to be changed.

Take but one instance. A Greek might take up the Gospel according to St. Matthew. No sooner had he opened it than he was confronted with a long genealogy. Genealogies were familiar enough to the Jew but quite unintelligible to the Greek. He would read on. He would be confronted with a Jesus who was the Son of David, a king of whom the Greeks had never heard, and the symbol of a racial and nationalist ambition which was nothing to the Greek. He would be faced with the picture of Jesus as Messiah, a term of which the Greek had never heard. Must the Greek who wished to become a Christian be compelled to reorganize his whole thinking into Jewish categories? Must he learn a good deal about Jewish history and Jewish apocalyptic literature (which told about the coming of the Messiah) before he could become a Christian? As E. J. Goodspeed phrased it: "Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of Christian salvation without being for ever routed, we might even say, detoured, through Judaism?" The Greek was one of the worldgreat thinkers. Had he to abandon all his own great intellectual heritage in order to think entirely in Jewish terms and categories of thought?

John faced that problem fairly and squarely. And he found one of the greatest solutions which ever entered the mind of man. Later on, in the commentary, we shall deal much more fully with Johngreat solution. At the moment we touch on it briefly. The Greeks had two great conceptions.

(a) They had the conception of the Logos. In Greek logos (G3056) means two things--it means word and it means reason. The Jew was entirely familiar with the all-powerful word of God. "God said, Let there be light; and there was light" (Gen_1:3 ). The Greek was entirely familiar with the thought of reason. He looked at this world; he saw a magnificent and dependable order. Night and day came with unfailing regularity; the year kept its seasons in unvarying course; the stars and the planets moved in their unaltering path; nature had her unvarying laws. What produced this order? The Greek answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world. He went on, What is it that gives man power to think, to reason and to know? Again he answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, dwelling within a man makes him a thinking rational being.

John seized on this. It was in this way that he thought of Jesus. He said to the Greeks, "All your lives you have been fascinated by this great, guiding, controlling mind of God. The mind of God has come to earth in the man Jesus. Look at him and you see what the mind and thought of God are like." John had discovered a new category in which the Greek might think of Jesus, a category in which Jesus was presented as nothing less than God acting in the form of a man.

(b) They had the conception of two worlds. The Greek always conceived of two worlds. The one was the world in which we live. It was a wonderful world in its way but a world of shadows and copies and unrealities. The other was the real world, in which the great realities, of which our earthly things are only poor, pale copies, stand for ever. To the Greek the unseen world was the real one; the seen world was only shadowy unreality.

Plato systematized this way of thinking in his doctrine of forms or ideas. He held that in the unseen world there was the perfect pattern of everything, and the things of this world were shadowy copies of these eternal patterns. To put it simply, Plato held that somewhere there was a perfect pattern of a table of which all earthly tables are inadequate copies; somewhere there was the perfect pattern of the good and the beautiful of which all earthly goodness and earthly beauty are imperfect copies. And the great reality, the supreme idea, the pattern of all patterns and the form of all forms was God. The great problem was how to get into this world of reality, how to get out of our shadows into the eternal truths.

John declares that that is what Jesus enables us to do. He is reality come to earth. The Greek word for real in this sense is alethinos (G228); it is very closely connected with the word alethes (G227), which means true, and aletheia (G225), which means "the truth." The King James and Revised Standard Versions translate alethinos (G228) true; they would be far better to translate it "real." Jesus is the real light (Joh_1:9 ); Jesus is the real bread (Joh_6:32 ); Jesus is the real vine (Joh_15:1 ); to Jesus belongs the real judgment (Joh_8:16 ). Jesus alone has reality in our world of shadows and imperfections.

Something follows from that. Every action that Jesus did was, therefore, not only an act in time but a window which allows us to see into reality. That is what John means when he talks of Jesusiracles as signs (semeia - G4592). The wonderful works of Jesus were not simply wonderful; they were windows opening onto the reality which is God. This explains why John tells the miracle stories in a quite different way from the other three gospel writers. There are two differences.

(a) In the Fourth Gospel we miss the note of compassion which is in the miracle stories of the others. In the others Jesus is moved with compassion for the leper (Mar_1:41 ); his sympathy goes out to Jairus (Mar_5:22 ); he is sorry for the father of the epileptic boy (Mar_9:14 ); when he raises to life the son of the widow of Nain, Luke says with an infinite tenderness, "He gave him to his mother" (Luk_7:15 ). But in John the miracles are not so much deeds of compassion as deeds which demonstrate the glory of Christ. After the miracle at Cana of Galilee, John comments: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory" (Joh_2:11 ). The raising of Lazarus happens "for the glory of God" (Joh_11:4 ). The blind manblindness existed to allow a demonstration of the glory of the works of God (Joh_9:3 ). To John it was not that there was no love and compassion in the miracles; but in every one of them he saw the glory of the reality of God breaking into time and into human affairs.

(b) Often the miracles of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are accompanied by a long discourse. The feeding of the five thousand is followed by the long discourse on the bread of life (Jn 6 ); the healing of the blind man springs from the saying that Jesus is the light of the world (Jn 9 ); the raising of Lazarus leads up to the saying that Jesus is the resurrection and the life (Jn 11 ). To John the miracles were not simply single events in time; they were insights into what God is always doing and what Jesus always is; they were windows into the reality of God. Jesus did not merely once feed five thousand people; that was an illustration that he is for ever the real bread of life. Jesus did not merely once open the eyes of a blind man; he is for ever the light of the world. Jesus did not merely once raise Lazarus from the dead; he is for ever and for all men the resurrection and the life. To John a miracle was never an isolated act; it was always a window into the reality of what Jesus always was and always is and always did and always does.

It was with this in mind that that great scholar Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 230) arrived at one of the most famous and true of all verdicts about the origin and aim of the Fourth Gospel. It was his view that the gospels containing the genealogies had been written first--that is, Luke and Matthew; that then Mark at the request of many who had heard Peter preach composed his gospel, which embodied the preaching material of Peter; and that then "last of all, John, perceiving that what had reference to the bodily things of Jesusinistry had been sufficiently related, and encouraged by his friends, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote a spiritual gospel" (quoted in Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 6 : 14). What Clement meant was that John was not so much interested in the mere facts as in the meaning of the facts, that it was not facts he was after but truth. John did not see the events of Jesusife simply as events in time; he saw them as windows looking into eternity, and he pressed towards the spiritual meaning of the events and the words of Jesusife in a way that the other three gospels did not attempt.

That is still one of the truest verdicts on the Fourth Gospel ever reached. John did write, not an historical, but a spiritual gospel.

So then, first of all, John presented Jesus as the mind of God in a person come to earth, and as the one person who possesses reality instead of shadows and able to lead men out of the shadows into the real world of which Plato and the great Greeks had dreamed. The Christianity which had once been clothed in Jewish categories had taken to itself the greatness of the thought of the Greeks.

The Rise Of The Heresies

The second of the great facts confronting the church when the Fourth Gospel was written was the rise of heresy. It was now seventy years since Jesus had been crucified. By this time the church was an organisation and an institution. Theologies and creeds were being thought out and stated; and inevitably the thoughts of some people went down mistaken ways and heresies resulted. A heresy is seldom a complete untruth; it usually results when one facet of the truth is unduly emphasised. We can see at least two of the heresies which the writer of the Fourth Gospel sought to combat.

(a) There were certain Christians, especially Jewish Christians, who gave too high a place to John the Baptist. There was something about him which had an inevitable appeal to the Jews. He walked in the prophetic succession and talked with the prophetic voice. We know that in later times there was an accepted sect of John the Baptist within the orthodox Jewish faith. In Act_19:1-7 we come upon a little group of twelve men on the fringe of the Christian church who had never gotten beyond the baptism of John.

Over and over again the Fourth Gospel quietly, but definitely, relegates John to his proper place. Over and over again John himself denies that he has ever claimed or possessed the highest place, and without qualification yields that place to Jesus. We have already seen that in the other gospels the ministry of Jesus did not begin until John the Baptist had been put into prison, but that in the Fourth Gospel their ministries overlap. The writer of the Fourth Gospel may well have used that arrangement to show John and Jesus in actual meeting and to show that John used these meetings to admit, and to urge others to admit, the supremacy of Jesus. It is carefully pointed out that John is not that light (Joh_1:8 ). He is shown as quite definitely disclaiming all Messianic aspirations (Joh_1:20 ; Joh_3:28 ; Joh_4:1 ; Joh_10:41 ). It is not even permissible to think of him as the highest witness (Joh_5:36 ). There is no criticism at all of John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel; but there is a rebuke to those who would give him a place which ought to belong to Jesus and to Jesus alone.

(b) A certain type of heresy which was very widely spread in the days when the Fourth Gospel was written is called by the general name of Gnosticism. Without some understanding of it much of Johngreatness and much of his aim will be missed. The basic doctrine of Gnosticism was that matter is essentially evil and spirit is essentially good. The Gnostics went on to argue that on that basis God himself cannot touch matter and therefore did not create the world. What he did was to put out a series of emanations. Each of these emanations was further from him, until at last there was one so distant from him that it could touch matter. That emanation was the creator of the world.

By itself that idea is bad enough, but it was made worse by an addition. The Gnostics held that each emanation knew less and less about God, until there was a stage when the emanations were not only ignorant of God but actually hostile to him. So they finally came to the conclusion that the creator god was not only different from the real God, but was also quite ignorant of and actively hostile to him. Cerinthus, one of the leaders of the Gnostics, said that "the world was created, not by God, but by a certain power far separate from him, and far distant from that Power who is over the universe, and ignorant of the God who is over all."

The Gnostics believed that God had nothing to do with the creating of the world. That is why John begins his gospel with the ringing statement: "All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh_1:3 ). That is why John insists that "God so loved the world" (Joh_3:16 ). In face of the Gnostics who so mistakenly spiritualized God into a being who could not possibly have anything to do with the world, John presented the Christian doctrine of the God who made the world and whose presence fills the world that he has made.

The beliefs of the Gnostics impinged on their ideas of Jesus.

(a) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus was one of the emanations which had proceeded from God. They held that he was not in any real sense divine; that he was only a kind of demigod who was more or less distant from the real God; that he was simply one of a chain of lesser beings between God and the world.

(b) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus had no real body. A body is matter and God could not touch matter; therefore Jesus was a kind of phantom without real flesh and blood. They held, for instance, that when he stepped on the ground he left no footprint, for his body had neither weight nor substance. They could never have said: "The Word became flesh" (Joh_1:14 ). Augustine tells how he had read much in the work of the philosophers of his day; he had found much that was very like what was in the New Testament, but, he said: "e Word was made flesh and dwelt among us did not read there." That is why John in his First Letter insists that Jesus came in the flesh, and declares that any one who denies that fact is moved by the spirit of antichrist (1Jo_4:3 ). This particular heresy is known as Docetism. Docetism comes from the Greek word dokein (G1380) which means to seem ; and the heresy is so called because it held that Jesus only seemed to be a man.

(c) Some Gnostics held a variation of that heresy. They held that Jesus was a man into whom the Spirit of God came at his baptism; that Spirit remained with him throughout his life until the end; but since the Spirit of God could never suffer and die, it left him before he was crucified. They gave Jesusry on the Cross as : "My power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?" And in their books they told of people talking on the Mount of Olives to a form which looked exactly like Jesus while the man Jesus died on the Cross.

So then the Gnostic heresies issued in one of two beliefs. They believed either that Jesus was not really divine but simply one of a series of emanations from God, or that he was not in any sense human but a kind of phantom in the shape of a man. The Gnostic beliefs at one and the same time destroyed the real godhead and the real manhood of Jesus.

The Humanity Of Jesus

The fact that John is out to correct both these Gnostic tendencies explains a curious paradoxical double emphasis in his gospel. On the one hand, there is no gospel which so uncompromisingly stresses the real humanity of Jesus. Jesus was angry with those who bought and sold in the Temple courts (Joh_2:15 ); he was physically tired as he sat by the well which was near Sychar in Samaria (Joh_4:6 ); his disciples offered him food in the way in which they would offer it to any hungry man (Joh_4:31 ); he had sympathy with those who were hungry and with those who were afraid (Joh_6:5 , Joh_6:20 ); he knew grief and he wept tears as any mourner might do (Joh_11:33 , Joh_11:35 , Joh_11:38 ); in the agony of the Cross the cry of his parched lips was: "I thirst" (Joh_19:28 ). The Fourth Gospel shows us a Jesus who was no shadowy, docetic figure; it shows us one who knew the weariness of an exhausted body and the wounds of a distressed mind and heart. It is the truly human Jesus whom the Fourth Gospel sets before us.

The Deity Of Jesus

On the other hand, there is no gospel which sets before us such a view of the deity of Jesus.

(a) John stresses the preexistence of Jesus. "Before Abraham was," said Jesus, "I am" (Joh_8:58 ). He talks of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was made (Joh_17:5 ). Again and again he speaks of his coming down from heaven (Joh_6:33-38 ). John saw in Jesus one who had always been, even before the world began.

(b) The Fourth Gospel stresses more than any of the others the omniscience of Jesus. It is Johnview that apparently miraculously Jesus knew the past record of the woman of Samaria (Joh_4:16-17 ); apparently without anyone telling him he knew how long the man beside the healing pool had been ill (Joh_5:6 ); before he asked it, he knew the answer to the question he put to Philip (Joh_6:6 ); he knew that Judas would betray him (Joh_6:61-64 ); he knew of the death of Lazarus before anyone told him of it (Joh_11:14 ). John saw in Jesus one who had a special and miraculous knowledge independent of anything which any man might tell him. He needed to ask no questions because he knew all the answers.

(c) The Fourth Gospel stresses the fact, as John saw it, that Jesus always acted entirely on his own initiative and uninfluenced by anyone else. It was not his motherrequest which moved him to the miracle at Cana of Galilee; it was his own personal decision (Joh_2:4 ); the urging of his brothers had nothing to do with the visit which he paid to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:10 ); no man took his life from him--no man could; he laid it down purely voluntarily (Joh_10:18 ; Joh_19:11 ). As John saw it, Jesus had a divine independence from all human influence. He was self-determined.

To meet the Gnostics and their strange beliefs John presents us with a Jesus who was undeniably human and who yet was undeniably divine.

The Author Of The Fourth Gospel

We have seen that the aim of the writer of the Fourth Gospel was to present the Christian faith in such a way that it would commend itself to the Greek world to which Christianity had gone out, and also to combat the heresies and mistaken ideas which had arisen within the church. We go on to ask, Who is that writer? Tradition answers unanimously that the author was John the apostle. We shall see that beyond doubt the authority of John lies behind the gospel, although it may well be that its actual form and penmanship did not come from his hand. Let us, then, collect what we know about him.

He was the younger son of Zebedee, who possessed a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee and was well enough off to be able to employ hired servants to help him with his work (Mar_1:19-20 ). His mother was Salome, and it seems likely that she was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mat_27:56 ; Mar_16:1 ). With his brother James he obeyed the call of Jesus (Mar_1:20 ). It would seem that James and John were in partnership with Peter in the fishing trade (Luk_5:7-10 ). He was one of the inner circle of the disciples, for the lists of the disciples always begin with the names of Peter, James and John, and there were certain great occasions when Jesus took these three specially with him (Mar_3:17 ; Mar_5:37 ; Mar_9:2 ; Mar_14:33 ).

In character he was clearly a turbulent and ambitious man. Jesus gave to him and to his brother the name Boanerges, which the gospel writers take to mean Sons of Thunder. John and his brother James were completely exclusive and intolerant (Mar_9:38 ; Luk_9:49 ). So violent was their temper that they were prepared to blast a Samaritan village out of existence because it would not give them hospitality when they were on their journey to Jerusalem (Luk_9:54 ). Either they or their mother Salome had the ambition that when Jesus came into his kingdom, they might be his principal ministers of state (Mar_10:35 ; Mat_20:20 ). In the other three gospels John appears as a leader of the apostolic band, one of the inner circle, and yet a turbulent ambitious and intolerant character.

In the Book of Acts John always appears as the companion of Peter, and he himself never speaks at all. His name is still one of the three names at the head of the apostolic list (Acts 1:13). He is with Peter when the lame man is healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Act_3:1 ). With Peter he is brought before the Sanhedrin and faces the Jewish leaders with a courage and a boldness that astonished them (Act_4:1-13 ). With Peter he goes from Jerusalem to Samaria to survey the work done by Philip (Act_8:14 ).

In Paulletters he appears only once. In Galatians 2:9 he is named as one of the pillars of the church along with Peter and James, and with them is depicted as giving his approval to the work of Paul.

John was a strange mixture. He was one of the leaders of the Twelve; he was one of the inner circle of Jesuslosest friends; at the same time he was a man of temper and ambition and intolerance, and yet of courage.

We may follow John into the stories told of him in the early church. Eusebius tells us that he was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 3 : 23). In the same passage Eusebius tells a characteristic story about John, a story which he received from Clement of Alexandria. John became a kind of bishop of Asia Minor and was visiting one of his churches near Ephesus. In the congregation he saw a tall and exceptionally fine-looking young man. He turned to the elder in charge of the congregation and said to him: "I commit that young man into your charge and into your care, and I call this congregation to witness that I do so." The elder took the young man into his own house and cared for him and instructed him, and the day came when he was baptized and received into the church. But very soon afterwards he fell in with evil friends and embarked on such a career of crime that he ended up by becoming the leader of a band of murdering and pillaging brigands. Some time afterwards John returned to the congregation. He said to the elder: "Restore to me the trust which I and the Lord committed to you and to the church of which you are in charge." At first the elder did not understand of what John was speaking. "I mean," said John, "that I am asking you for the soul of the young man whom I entrusted to you." "Alas!" said the elder, "he is dead." "Dead?" said John. "He is dead to God," said the elder. "He fell from grace; he was forced to flee from the city for his crimes and now he is a brigand in the mountains." Straightway John went to the mountains. Deliberately he allowed himself to be captured by the robber band. They brought him before the young man who was now the chief of the band and, in his shame, the young man tried to run away from him. John, though an old man, pursued him. "My son," he cried, "are you running away from your father? I am feeble and far advanced in age; have pity on me, my son; fear not; there is yet hope of salvation for you. I will stand for you before the Lord Christ. If need be I will gladly die for you as he died for me. Stop, stay, believe! It is Christ who has sent me to you." The appeal broke the heart of the young man. He stopped, threw away his weapons, and wept. Together he and John came down the mountainside and he was brought back into the church and into the Christian way. There we see the love and the courage of John still in operation.

Eusebius (3 : 28) tells another story of John which he got from the works of Irenaeus. We have seen that one of the leaders of the Gnostic heresy was a man called Cerinthus. "The apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, when he learned that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from his place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. He advised those who were with him to do the same. t us flee,e said, st the bath fall, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."here we have another glimpse of the temper of John. Boanerges was not quite dead.

Cassian tells another famous story about John. One day he was found playing with a tame partridge. A narrower and more rigid brother rebuked him for thus wasting his time, and John answered: "The bow that is always bent will soon cease to shoot straight."

It is Jerome who tells the story of the last words of John. When he was dying, his disciples asked him if he had any last message to leave them. "Little children," he said, "love one another." Again and again he repeated it; and they asked him if that was all he had to say. "It is enough," he said, "for it is the Lordcommand."

Such then is our information about John; and he emerges a figure of fiery temper, of wide ambition, of undoubted courage, and, in the end, of gentle love.

The Beloved Disciple

If we have been following our references closely we will have noticed one thing. All our information about John comes from the first three gospels. It is the astonishing fact that the Fourth Gospel never mentions the apostle John from beginning to end. But it does mention two other people.

First, it speaks of the disciple whom Jesus loved. There are four mentions of him. He was leaning on Jesusreast at the Last Supper (Joh_13:23-25 ); it is into his care that Jesus committed Mary as he died upon his Cross (Joh_19:25-27 ); it was Peter and he whom Mary Magdalene met on her return from the empty tomb on the first Easter morning (Joh_20:2 ); he was present at the last resurrection appearance of Jesus by the lake-side (Joh_21:20 ).

Second, the Fourth Gospel has a kind of character whom we might call the witness. As the Fourth Gospel tells of the spear thrust into the side of Jesus and the issue of the water and the blood, there comes the comment: "He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe" (Joh_19:35 ). At the end of the gospel comes the statement that it was the beloved disciple who testified of these things "and we know that his testimony is true" (Joh_21:24 ).

Here we are faced with rather a strange thing. In the Fourth Gospel John is never mentioned, but the beloved disciple is and in addition there is a witness of some kind to the whole story. It has never really been doubted in tradition that the beloved disciple is John. A few have tried to identify him with Lazarus, for Jesus is said to have loved Lazarus (Joh_11:3 , Joh_11:5 ), or with the Rich Young Ruler, of whom it is said that Jesus, looking on him, loved him (Mar_10:21 ). But although the gospel never says so in so many words, tradition has always identified the beloved disciple with John, and there is no real need to doubt the identification.

But a very real point arises--suppose John himself actually did the writing of the gospel, would he really be likely to speak of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved? Would he really be likely to pick himself out like this, and, as it were, to say: "I was his favourite; he loved me best of all"? It is surely very unlikely that John would confer such a title on himself. If it was conferred by others, it is a lovely title; if it was conferred by himself, it comes perilously near to an almost incredible self-conceit.

Is there any way then that the gospel can be Johnown eye-witness story, and yet at the same time have been actually written down by someone else?

The Production Of The Church

In our search for the truth we begin by noting one of the outstanding and unique features of the Fourth Gospel. The most remarkable thing about it is the long speeches of Jesus. Often they are whole chapters long, and are entirely unlike the way in which Jesus is portrayed as speaking in the other three gospels. The Fourth Gospel, as we have seen, was written about the year A.D. 100, that is, about seventy years after the crucifixion. Is it possible after these seventy years to look on these speeches as word for word reports of what Jesus said? Or can we explain them in some way that is perhaps even greater than that? We must begin by holding in our minds the fact of the speeches and the question which they inevitably raise.

And we have something to add to that. It so happens that in the writings of the early church we have a whole series of accounts of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written. The earliest is that of Irenaeus who was bishop of Lyons about A.D. 177; and Irenaeus was himself a pupil of Polycarp, who in turn had actually been a pupil of John. There is therefore a direct link between Irenaeus and John. Irenaeus writes:

"John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon his breast,

himself also published the gospel in Ephesus, when he was living

in Asia."

The suggestive thing there is that Irenaeus does not merely say that John wrote the gospel; he says that John published (exedoke) it in Ephesus. The word that Irenaeus uses makes it sound, not like the private publication of some personal memoir, but like the public issue of some almost official document.

The next account is that of Clement who was head of the great school of Alexandria about A.D. 230. He writes:

"Last of all, John perceiving that the bodily facts had been made

plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, composed a

spiritual gospel."

The important thing here is the phrase being urged by his friends. It begins to become clear that the Fourth Gospel is far more than one manpersonal production and that there is a group, a community, a church behind it. On the same lines, a tenth-century manuscript called the Codex Toletanus, which prefaces the New Testament books with short descriptions, prefaces the Fourth Gospel thus:

The apostle John, whom the Lord Jesus loved most, last of all

wrote this gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against

Cerinthus and other heretics."

Again we have the idea that behind the Fourth Gospel there is the authority of a group and of a church.

We now turn to a very important document, known as the Muratorian Canon. It is so called after a scholar Muratori who discovered it. It is the first list of New Testament books which the church ever issued and was compiled in Rome about A.D. 170. Not only does it list the New Testament books, it also gives short accounts of the origin and nature and contents of each of them. Its account of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written is extremely important and illuminating.

"At the request of his fellow-disciples and of his bishops, John,

one of the disciples, said: úst with me for three days from

this time and whatsoever shall be revealed to each of us, whether

it be favourable to my writing or not, let us relate it to one

another.n the same night it was revealed to Andrew that John

should relate all things, aided by the revision of all."

We cannot accept all that statement, because it is not possible that Andrew, the apostle, was in Ephesus in A.D. 100; but the point is that it is stated as clearly as possible that, while the authority and the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel are that of John, it is clearly and definitely the product, not of one man, but of a group and a community.

Now we can see something of what happened. About the year A.D. 100 there was a group of men in Ephesus whose leader was John. They revered him as a saint and they loved him as a father. He must have been almost a hundred years old. Before he died, they thought most wisely that it would be a great thing if the aged apostle set down his memories of the years when he had been with Jesus. But in the end they did far more than that. We can think of them sitting down and reliving the old days. One would say: "Do you remember how Jesus said ... ?" And John would say: "Yes, and now we know that he meant..."

In other words this group was not only writing down what Jesus said; that would have been a mere feat of memory. They were writing down what Jesus meant; that was the guidance of the Holy Spirit. John had thought about every word that Jesus had said; and he had thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was so real to him. W. M. Macgregor has a sermon entitled: "What Jesus becomes to a man who has known him long." That is a perfect description of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. A. H. N. Green Armytage puts the thing perfectly in his book John who saw. Mark, he says, suits the missionary with his clear-cut account of the facts of Jesusife; Matthew suits the teacher with his systematic account of the teaching of Jesus; Luke suits the parish minister or priest with his wide sympathy and his picture of Jesus as the friend of all; but John is the gospel of the contemplative.

He goes on to speak of the apparent contrast between Mark and John. "The two gospels are in a sense the same gospel. Only, where Mark saw things plainly, bluntly, literally, John saw them subtly, profoundly, spiritually. We might say that John lit Markpages by the lantern of a lifetimemeditation." Wordsworth defined poetry as "Emotion recollected in tranquillity ". That is a perfect description of the Fourth Gospel. That is why John is unquestionably the greatest of all the gospels. Its aim is, not to give us what Jesus said like a newspaper report, but to give us what Jesus meant. In it the Risen Christ still speaks. John is not so much The Gospel according to St. John; it is rather The Gospel according to the Holy Spirit. It was not John of Ephesus who wrote the Fourth Gospel; it was the Holy Spirit who wrote it through John.

The Penman Of The Gospel

We have one question still to ask. We can be quite sure that the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel is that of John the apostle; but we have also seen that behind it is a witness who was the writer, in the sense that he was the actual penman. Can we find out who he was? We know from what the early church writers tell us that there were actually two Johns in Ephesus at the same time. There was John the apostle, but there was another John, who was known as John the elder.

Papias, who loved to collect all that he could find about the history of the New Testament and the story of Jesus, gives us some very interesting information. He was Bishop of Hierapolis, which is quite near Ephesus, and his dates are from about A.D. 70 to about A.D. 145. That is to say, he was actually a contemporary of John. He writes how he tried to find out "what Andrew said or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord; and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say." In Ephesus there was the apostle John, and the elder John; and the elder John was so well-loved a figure that he was actually known as The Elder. He clearly had a unique place in the church. Both Eusebius and Dionysius the Great tell us that even to their own days in Ephesus there were two famous tombs, the one of John the apostle, and the other of John the elder.

Now let us turn to the two little letters, Second John and Third John. The letters come from the same hand as the gospel, and how do they begin? The second letter begins: "The elder unto the elect lady and her children" (2Jo_1:1 ). The third letter begins: "The elder unto the beloved Gaius" (3Jo_1:1 ). Here we have our solution. The actual penman of the letters was John the elder; the mind and memory behind them was the aged John the apostle, the master whom John the elder always described as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

The Precious Gospel

The more we know about the Fourth Gospel the more precious it becomes. For seventy years John had thought of Jesus. Day by day the Holy Spirit had opened out to him the meaning of what Jesus said. So when John was near the century of life and his days were numbered, he and his friends sat down to remember. John the elder held the pen to write for his master, John the apostle; and the last of the apostles set down, not only what he had heard Jesus say, but also what he now knew Jesus had meant. He remembered how Jesus had said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (Joh_16:12-13 ). There were many things which seventy years ago he had not understood; there were many things which in these seventy years the Spirit of Truth had revealed to him. These things John set down even as the eternal glory was dawning upon him. When we read this gospel let us remember that we are reading the gospel which of all the gospels is most the work of the Holy Spirit, speaking to us of the things which Jesus meant, speaking through the mind and memory of John the apostle and by the pen of John the elder. Behind this gospel is the whole church at Ephesus, the whole company of the saints, the last of the apostles, the Holy Spirit, the Risen Christ himself.

FURTHER READING

John

C. Kingsley Barrett, The Gospel According to Saint John (G)

J. H. Bernahrd, St. John (ICC; G)

E. C. Hoskyns (ed. F. M. Davey), The Fourth Gospel (E)

R. H. Lightfoot, St. JohnGospel: A Commentary (E)

G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (MC; E)

J. N. Saunders (ed. B. A. Mastin), The Gospel According to Saint John (ACB; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to Saint John (TC; E)

B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to Saint John (E)

The SpeakerCommentary (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text G: Greek Text

Barclay: John 10 (Chapter Introduction)

The Shepherd And His Sheep (Joh_10:1-6)

The Shepherd And His Sheep (Joh_10:1-6 Continued)

The Door To Life (Joh_10:7-10)

The True And The False Shepherd (Joh_10:11-15)

The Ultimate Unity (Joh_10:16)

Love's Choice (Joh_10:17-18)

Madman Or Son Of God (Joh_10:19-21)

The Claim And The Promise (Joh_10:22-28)

The Claim And The Promise (Joh_10:22-28 Continued)

The Tremendous Trust And The Tremendous Claim (Joh_10:29-30)

Inviting The Acid Test (Joh_10:31-39)

Peace Before The Storm (Joh_10:40-41)

Constable: John (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer of this Gospel did not identify himself as such in the text. This is true of all the Gospel evangelists. Nevertheless there is evidence within this Gospel as well as in the writings of the church fathers that the writer was the Apostle John.

The internal evidence from the Gospel itself is as follows. In 21:24 the writer of "these things" (i.e., the whole Gospel) was the same person as the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:7). That disciple was one of the seven disciples mentioned in 21:2. He was also the disciple who sat beside Jesus in the upper room when He instituted the Lord's Supper and to whom Peter motioned (13:23-24). This means that he was one of the Twelve since only they were present in the upper room (Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14). The disciple whom Jesus loved was also one of the inner circle of three disciples, namely Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33; John 20:2-10). James died in the early history of the church, probably in the early 40s (Acts 12:2). There is good evidence that whoever wrote this Gospel did so after then. The writer was also not Peter (21:20-24). This evidence points to John as the disciple whom Jesus loved who was also the writer of this Gospel. The writer claimed to have seen Jesus' glory (1:14; cf. 1:1-4), which John did at the Transfiguration. There are several Johns in the New Testament. This one was one of Zebedee's sons who was a fisherman before Jesus called him to leave his nets and follow Him.

"To a certain extent each of the Gospels reflects the personality of its author, but in none of them is there a more distinctive individuality manifested than in John."¹

The external evidence also points to the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons (c. 130-200 A.D.), wrote that he had heard Polycarp (c. 69-155 A.D.), a disciple of John. It was apparently from Polycarp that Irenaeus learned that, "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia."² Other later church fathers supported this tradition including Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, and Tatian.³ Eusebius (fourth century) also specifically mentioned that Matthew and John among the apostles wrote the Gospels that bear their names.⁴

Some scholars have rejected this seemingly clear evidence and have refused to accept Johannine authorship. This criticism comes from those who hold a lower view of Scripture generally. Answering their objections lies outside the purpose of these notes.⁵

Place of Writing

Eusebius wrote that John ministered to the church in Ephesus, which Paul had founded (Acts 19:1-20), for many years.⁶ The Isle of Patmos where John spent some time in exile is close to Ephesus (cf. Rev. 1:9-11). As previously noted, Eusebius wrote that John composed his Gospel when he was at Ephesus.⁷ During the first century, that city was one of the largest centers of Christian activity in the Gentile world.⁸

Date

A few scholars believe John could have written this book as early as 45 A.D., the date when Saul of Tarsus' persecutions drove many Christians out of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:1-4).⁹ There are two main problems with such an early date. First, John seems to have assumed that the Synoptic Gospels were available to the Christian public. There is some doubt about this since it assumes an assumption, but most scholars believe, on the basis of content, that John selected his material to supplement material in the Synoptics. This would put the fourth Gospel later than the Synoptics. Second, according to early church tradition the Apostle John lived long into the first century. This would make a later date possible even though it does not prove a later date. Some students of the book believe that John 21:18-22 implies that Peter would die before John did, and Peter died about 67 A.D. In general, most authorities reject a date this early for these and other reasons.

Some conservatives date the Gospel slightly before 70 A.D. because John described Palestine and Jerusalem as they were before the Roman destruction (cf. 5:2).¹⁰ This may be a weak argument since John frequently used the Greek present tense to describe things in the past.¹¹ Some who hold this date note the absence of any reference to Jerusalem's destruction in John. However there could have been many reasons John chose not to mention the destruction of Jerusalem if he wrote after that event. A date of writing before the destruction of Jerusalem is also a minority opinion among scholars.

Many conservative scholars believe that John wrote his Gospel between 85 and 95 A.D.¹² Early church tradition was that John wrote it when he was an older man. Moreover even the early Christians regarded this as the fourth Gospel and believed that John wrote it after the Synoptics. It is not clear if John had access to the Synoptic Gospels. He did not quote from any of them. However, his choice of material for his own Gospel suggests that he probably read them and chose to include other material from Jesus' ministry in his account to supplement them.¹³

The latest possible date would be about 100 A.D. Some liberal scholars date this Gospel in the second century. The Egerton papyrus that dates from early in the second century contains unmistakable allusions to John's Gospel.¹⁴ This seems to rule out a second century date.

It seems impossible to identify the date of writing very exactly, as evidenced by the difference of opinion that exists between excellent conservative scholars. A date sometime between 65 and 95 A.D. is probable.

Characteristic features and purpose

John's presentation of Jesus in his Gospel has been a problem to many modern students of the New Testament. Some regard it as the greatest problem in current New Testament studies.¹⁵ Compared to the Synoptics that present Jesus as a historical figure, John stressed the deity of Jesus. Obviously the Synoptics present Jesus as divine also, but the emphasis in the fourth Gospel is more strongly on Jesus' full deity. This emphasis runs from the beginning, with the Word becoming flesh (1:1, 14), to the end, were Thomas confessed Jesus as his Lord and God (20:28). John's purpose statement (20:30-31) explains why he stressed Jesus' deity. It was so his readers would believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and thereby have eternal life.

The key word in the book is the verb "believe" (Gr. pisteuo), which appears 98 times. The noun form of the word (Gr. pistis, "faith") does not occur at all. This phenomenon shows that John wanted to stress the importance of active vital trust in Jesus. Other key words are witness, love, abide, the Counselor (i.e., the Holy Spirit), light, life, darkness, Word, glorify, true, and real.¹⁶ These words identify important themes in the Gospel.

John's unique purpose accounted for his selection of material, as was true of every biblical writer. He omitted Jesus' genealogy, birth, baptism, temptation, exorcizing demons, parables, transfiguration, institution of the Lord's Supper, agony in Gethsemane, and ascension. He focused on Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, the Jewish feasts, Jesus' private conversations with individuals, and His preparation of His disciples (chs. 13-17). John selected seven signs or miracles that demonstrate that Jesus was the divine Messiah (chs. 2-12). He also recorded the discourses that Jesus gave following these signs that explained their significance. Moreover he stressed Jesus' claims that occur in the unique "I am" statements (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5).

About 93% of the material in John's Gospel does not appear in the Synoptics.¹⁷ This fact indicates the uniqueness of this Gospel compared with the other three and explains why they bear the title "Synoptic" and John does not. All four Gospels are quite similar, though each of them has its own distinctive features. John, on the other hand, is considerably different from the others. Specifically it stresses Jesus' deity stronger than the others do. It is, I believe, impossible to determine for certain whether or not John used or even knew of the Synoptic Gospels.¹⁸ I suspect that he did.

Another difference between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel is the writers' view of eschatology. They all share the same basic view, namely that the Jews' rejection of their Messiah resulted in the postponement of the messianic kingdom. However the Synoptic writers stressed the future aspects of eschatology more than John who put more emphasis on the present or realized aspects of eschatology. This is not to say that John presented the kingdom as having begun during Jesus' first advent. He did not. He did stress, however, the aspects of kingdom life that Christians currently enjoy as benefits of the new covenant, which Jesus ratified by His death. These include especially the Holy Spirit's ministries of indwelling and illuminating the believer. Such a shift in emphasis is understandable if John wrote later than the other Gospel evangelists. By then it was clear that God had postponed the messianic kingdom, and believers' interest was more on life in the church than it was on life in the messianic kingdom (cf. chs. 13-17).

"It is . . . quite possible that one of John's aims was to combat false teaching of a docetic type. The Docetists held that the Christ never became incarnate; everything was seeming.'¹⁹ That the docetic heresy did not appear in the first century seems clear, but certain elements that later were to be embodied in this heresy seem to have been quite early."²⁰

"We have suggested that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to two groups within the Johannine community, each of which represented an extreme interpretation of the nature of Jesus: one which did not accept him as God, and the other which did not accept him as man (see the introduction, xxiii; also Smalley, John, 145-48). The perfectly balanced christology of the Fourth Gospel was intended, we believe, to provide a resolution of this theological crisis: to remind the ex-Jewish members of the group, with their strong emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, that the Christ was divine; and to insist, for the benefit of the ex-pagan members (with their docetic outlook), that Jesus was truly human."²¹

The context of Jesus' ministry accounts for the strong Jewish flavor that marks all four Gospels. Yet John's Gospel is more theological and cosmopolitan than the others.

"It has . . . a wider appeal to growing Christian experience and to an enlarging Gentile constituency than the others.

"The Synoptics present him for a generation in process of being evangelized; John presents him as the Lord of the maturing and questioning believer."²²

As a piece of literature, John's Gospel has a symphonic structure.

"A symphony is a musical composition having several movements related in subject, but varying in form and execution. It usually begins with a dominant theme, into which variations are introduced at intervals. The variations seem to be developed independently, but as the music is played, they modulate into each other until finally all are brought to a climax. The apparent disunity is really part of a design which is not evident at first, but which appears in the progress of the composition."²³

Tasker described the fourth Gospel as "the simplest and yet the most profound of the Christian Gospels."²⁴

Original recipients

The preceding quotation implies that John wrote primarily for Christians. This implication may seem to be contrary to John's stated purpose (20:30-31). Probably John wrote both to convince unbelievers that Jesus was the Son of God and to give Christians who faced persecution confidence in their Savior. The word "believe" in 20:31 may be in the present tense implying that Christian readers should continue believing. It could be in the aorist tense suggesting that pagan readers should believe initially. An evangelistic purpose does not exclude an edification purpose. Indeed all 66 books of the Bible have edifying value for God's people (2 Tim. 3:16-17). John's purpose for unbelievers is that they might obtain eternal life, and his purpose for believers is that we might experience abundant eternal life (10:10).

John explained Jewish customs, translated Jewish names, and located Palestinian sites. These facts suggest that he was writing for Gentile readers outside Palestine. Furthermore the prologue seems addressed to readers who thought in Greek categories. John's inclusion of the Greeks who showed interest in seeing Jesus (12:20-22) may also suggest that he wrote with them in view. Because of John's general purposes it seems best to conclude that the original readers were primarily Gentile Christians and Gentile unbelievers.²⁵

"By the use of personal reminiscences interpreted in the light of a long life of devotion to Christ and by numerous episodes that generally had not been used in the Gospel tradition, whether written or oral, John created a new and different approach to understanding Jesus' person. John's readers were primarily second-generation Christians he was familiar with and to whom he seemed patriarchal."²⁶

The writer did not indicate the geographical location of the original recipients of his Gospel. This was undoubtedly intentional since the message of John has universal appeal. Perhaps its first readers lived in the Roman province of Asia the capital of which was Ephesus.

Summary of Gospel Introductions
Gospel	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Date	40-70probably 40s	63-70probably 60s	57-59probably 50s	65-95probably 90s
Origin	Palestine	Rome	Caesarea	Ephesus
Audience	Jews	Romans	Greeks	Gentiles
Emphasis	King	Servant	Man	God

Message²⁷

In one sense the Gospel of John is more profound than the Synoptics. It is the most difficult Gospel for most expositors to preach and to teach for reasons that will become evident as we study it. In another sense, however, the fourth Gospel is the easiest Gospel to understand. Leon Morris wrote that it is a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.²⁸ It is both simple and profound. It clarifies some things that the Synoptics leave as mysteries.

What are these mysteries? Matthew presents Jesus as the King, but it does not articulate the reason for Jesus' great authority. John does. Mark presents Jesus as the Servant, but it does not account for His depth of consecration to God. John does. Luke presents Jesus as the perfect Man, but it does not explain His uniqueness from the rest of humankind. John does.

The Gospel of John reveals answers to the mysteries about Jesus that the Synoptics leave hidden. It is therefore an apocalypse, an unveiling similar to the Book of Revelation in this respect. The Book of Revelation is the climax of biblical Christology. The Gospel of John plays that part among the Gospels. It is a revelation of the person of Jesus Christ more than any of the others. John told us that it would be this in his prologue (1:1-18).

The statement of the message of this Gospel occurs in 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John claimed that Jesus was the explanation of God the Father. This Gospel presents Jesus as the One who manifested God to humankind. This book then stresses the revelation of the truth about God.

Mankind has constantly sought to represent God in some way. We want to know what God is like. Ideas about God that do not come from the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ are idolatrous. They create a false view of God. Typically human beings without divine revelation have imagined God as being an immense version of themselves, a projection of human personality into cosmic proportions. God's revelation of Himself, however, involved the limitation of Himself to humanity, the exact opposite approach. This is what God did in the Incarnation. God's revelations are often the exact opposite of what one would expect.

John presented Jesus as the Son of God. He wanted his readers to view Jesus and to see God. In the tears of Jesus, we should see what causes God sorrow. In the compassion of Jesus, we should see how God cares for His own. In the anger of Jesus, we should see what God hates.

What do we learn about God from Jesus in John? The prologue gives us the essential answer, and the body of the book explains this answer with various illustrations from Jesus' ministry. The prologue tells us that Jesus has manifested the glory of God by revealing two things about Him: His grace and His truth (1:14). All that Jesus revealed about God that this Gospel narrates is contractible into these two words. Notice first the revelation of grace in this Gospel.

The Gospel of John presents God as a gracious person. Behind His gracious dealings lies a heart of love. There are probably hundreds of evidences of God's love resulting in gracious action in this book. Let us note just the evidence of these qualities in the seven signs that John chose to record.

The miracle of changing water into wine (ch. 2) shows God's concern for marital joy. The healing of the official's son (ch. 4) shows God's desire that people experience family unity. The healing of the paralytic (ch. 5) shows God's grace in providing physical restoration. The feeding of the 5000 (ch. 6) shows God's love in providing material needs. The miracle of Jesus walking on the water (ch. 6) shows God's desire that people enjoy supernatural peace. The healing of the man born blind (ch. 9) illustrates God's desire that we have true understanding. The raising of Lazarus (ch. 11) shows God's grace in providing new life. All these miracles are revelations of God's love manifesting itself in gracious behavior toward us in our various needs. These are only the most obvious manifestations of God's grace in this book.

This Gospel also reveals that God is a God of truth. Another one of God's attributes that we see revealed in this Gospel lies behind the truth that we see revealed in this Gospel. That attribute is His holiness. The figure that John used to describe God's holiness is light. Light is a common figure for God's holiness in the Old Testament too. The principle of God's holiness governs the passion of His love.

Jesus' great works in John reveal God's love and His great words reveal God's truth. Let us select seven of the great "I am" claims of Jesus as illustrations of the various aspects of the truth that Jesus revealed about God. All these claims point to God as the source and to Jesus as the mediator of things having to do with truth.

The bread of life claim (ch. 6) points to God as the source of true sustenance. The light of the world claim (ch. 9) points to God as the source of true illumination. The door claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true security. The good shepherd claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true care. The resurrection and the life claim (ch. 11) points to God as the source of true life. The way, the truth, and the life claim (ch. 14) points to God as the source of true authority. The vine claim (ch. 15) points to God as the source of true fruitfulness. All of these claims pointed directly to Jesus as the mediator, but they also pointed beyond Him to God the Father. They were revelations of the truth concerning God.

These are all further revelations of the character of God introduced first in Exodus 3 where God began to reveal Himself as "I am." The Law of Moses was an initial revelation about God. The revelation that Jesus Christ brought was a further, fuller, and final revelation of the grace and truth that characterize God (1:17). These revelations find their most comprehensive expression in the fourth Gospel.

What are the implications of the revelation in this Gospel? First, such a revelation calls for worship.

In the Old Testament, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through the tabernacle. In the Incarnation, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through His Son (1:14). The tabernacle was the place where God revealed Himself and around which His people congregated to worship Him in response. The Son of God is the person through whom God has now given the greatest and fullest revelation of Himself and around whom we now bow in worship.

Second, such a revelation calls for service. Under the old Mosaic economy, worship prepared God's people to serve Him. Their service consisted of carrying out His mission for them in the world. The revelation of God should always result in service as well as worship (cf. Isa. 6:1-8). When we learn who God is as we study this Gospel, our reaction should not only be worship but service. This is true of the church as a whole and of every individual believer in it. Thomas' ascription of worship (20:28) was only preliminary to his fulfilling God's mission for him (20:21-23). Worship should never be an end in itself. Even in heaven we will serve as well as worship God (Rev. 22:3).

As recipients of this revelation of God, our lives too should be notable for grace and truth. These qualities should not only be the themes of our worship. They should also be the trademarks of our service. Truth and holiness should mark our words and motives. Graciousness should stamp our works as we deal with people. If they do not, we have not yet comprehended the revelation of God that Jesus came to bring to His own. Sloppy graciousness jeopardizes truthfulness, and rigid truthfulness endangers graciousness. Jesus illustrated the balance.

This Gospel has a strong appeal to the unsaved as well. John wrote it specifically to bring the light of revelation about Jesus' true identity to those who sit in spiritual darkness (20:30-31). The knowledge of who Jesus really is is the key to the knowledge of who God really is. Therefore our service must not only bear the marks of certain characteristics, namely grace and truth, but it must also communicate a specific content: who Jesus is. People need to consider who Jesus is. There is no better way for them to do this than by reading this Gospel. Remember the stated purpose of this book (20:30-31). Use it as an evangelistic tool.

Constable: John (Outline)

Outline

I. Prologue 1:1-18

A. The preincarnate Word 1:1-5

B. The witness of John the Baptist 1:6-8

C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13

D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19-12:50

A. The prelude to Jesus' public ministry 1:19-51

1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28

2. John the Baptist's open identification of Jesus 1:29-34

3. The response to John the Baptist's witness 1:35-42

4. The witness of Philip and Andrew 1:43-51

B. Jesus' early Galilean ministry 2:1-12

1. The first sign: changing water to wine 2:1-11

2. Jesus' initial stay in Capernaum 2:12

C. Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem 2:13-3:36

1. The first cleansing of the temple 2:13-22

2. Initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem 2:23-25

3. Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus 3:1-21

4. John the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' ministry 3:22-30

5. The explanation of Jesus' preeminence 3:31-36

D. Jesus' ministry in Samaria 4:1-42

1. The interview with the Samaritan woman 4:1-26

2. Jesus' explanation of evangelistic ministry 4:27-38

3. The response to Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42

E. Jesus' resumption of His Galilean ministry 4:43-54

1. Jesus' return to Galilee 4:43-45

2. The second sign: healing the official's son 4:46-54

F. Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem ch. 5

1. The third sign: healing the paralytic 5:1-9

2. The antagonism of the Jewish authorities 5:10-18

3. The Son's equality with the Father 5:19-29

4. The Father's witness to the Son 5:30-47

G. Jesus' later Galilean ministry 6:1-7:9

1. The fourth sign: feeding the 5,000 6:1-15

2. The fifth sign: walking on the water 6:16-21

3. The bread of life discourse 6:22-59

4. The responses to the bread of life discourse 6:60-7:9

H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:10-10:42

1. The controversy surrounding Jesus 7:10-13

2. Jesus' ministry at the feast of Tabernacles 7:14-44

3. The unbelief of the Jewish leaders 7:45-52

[4. The woman caught in adultery 7:53-8:11]

5. The light of the world discourse 8:12-59

6. The sixth sign: healing a man born blind ch. 9

7. The good shepherd discourse 10:1-21

8. The confrontation at the feast of Dedication 10:22-42

I. The conclusion of Jesus' public ministry chs. 11-12

1. The seventh sign: raising Lazarus 11:1-44

2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57

3. Mary's anointing of Jesus 12:1-8

4. The official antagonism toward Lazarus 12:9-11

5. Jesus' triumphal entry 12:12-19

6. Jesus' announcement of His death 12:20-36

7. The unbelief of Israel 12:37-50

III. Jesus' private ministry chs. 13-17

A. The Last Supper 13:1-30

1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20

2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30

B. The Upper Room Discourse 13:31-16:33

1. The new commandment 13:31-35

2. Peter's profession of loyalty 13:36-38

3. Jesus' comforting revelation in view of His departure 14:1-24

4. The promise of future understanding 14:25-31

5. The importance of abiding in Jesus 15:1-16

6. The warning about opposition from the world 15:17-27

7. The clarification of the future 16:1-24

8. The clarification of Jesus' destination 16:25-33

C. Jesus' high priestly prayer ch. 17

1. Jesus' requests for Himself 17:1-5

2. Jesus' requests for the Eleven 17:6-19

3. Jesus' requests for future believers 17:20-26

IV. Jesus' passion ministry chs. 18-20

A. Jesus' presentation of Himself to His enemies 18:1-11

B. Jesus' religious trial 18:12-27

1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-14

2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priests' courtyard and Peter's first denial 18:15-18

3. Annas' interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24

4. Peter's second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27

C. Jesus' civil trial 18:28-19:16

1. The Jews' charge against Jesus 18:28-32

2. The question of Jesus' kingship 18:33-38a

3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40

4. The sentencing of Jesus 19:1-16

D. Jesus' crucifixion 19:17-30

1. Jesus' journey to Golgotha 19:17

2. The men crucified with Jesus 19:18

3. The inscription over Jesus' cross 19:19-22

4. The distribution of Jesus' garments 19:23-24

5. Jesus' provision for His mother 19:25-27

6. The death of Jesus 19:28-30

E. The treatment of Jesus' body 19:31-42

1. The removal of Jesus' body from the cross 19:31-37

2. The burial of Jesus 19:38-42

F. Jesus' resurrection 20:1-29

1. The discovery of Peter and John 20:1-9

2. The discovery of Mary Magdalene 20:10-18

3. The appearance to the Eleven minus Thomas on Easter evening 20:19-23

4. The transformed faith of Thomas 20:24-29

G. The purpose of this Gospel 20:30-31

V. Epilogue ch. 21

A. Jesus' appearance to seven disciples in Galilee 21:1-14

B. Jesus' teachings about motivation for service 21:15-23

C. The writer's postscript 21:24-25

Constable: John

John

Bibliography

Allen, Ronald B. "Affirming Right-of-Way on Ancient Paths." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):3-11.

Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 35 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873.

Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. The Daily Study Bible series. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1955.

Barrett, C. K. Essays on John. London: SPCK, 1982.

_____. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes onthe Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978.

Bauckham, Richard. "Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple." In Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, pp. 72-89. Edited by Barnabas Lindars. London: SPCK, 1988.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):171-84.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. Word Bible Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Bernard, J. C. The Gospel According to St. John. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.

Blum, Edwin A. "John." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 267-348. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Bowman, John. "Samaritan Studies." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 40:2 (March 1958):298-327.

Bray, Gerald. "The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology Today: Do We Still Need It?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):415-26.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes. Anchor Bible series. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966-71.

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. Translated by T. H. C. Parker. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959-61.

Carson, Donald A. "Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):411-29.

_____. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1981.

_____. "The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11." Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):547-66.

_____. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Coggins, R. J. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Colwell, E. C. "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):12-21.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Culpepper, R. Alan. "The Pivot of John's Prologue." New Testament Studies 27 (1981):1-31.

Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.

Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan Co., 1927.

Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Derickson, Gary W. "Viticulture and John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):34-52.

_____. "Viticulture's Contribution to the Interpretation of John 15:1-6." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 19 November 1994.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):44-53.

_____. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

_____. "Note on John 21, 24." Journal of Theological Studies NS4 (1953):212-13.

Dods, Marcus. The Gospel of St. John. Expositer Bible series. 2 vols. 6th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Ark, 1984.

Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Duncan, Dan. "Avodah Zarah, Makkoth, and Kerithoth." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):52-54.

Dvorak, James D. "The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):201-13.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, 1912.

Emerton, John A. "Some New Testament Notes." Journal of Theological Studies 11NS (1960):329-36.

Enns, Paul. "The Upper Room Discourse: The Consummation of Christ's Instruction." ThD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of John. New York: "Our Hope," 1925.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.

Godet, F. Commentary on the Gospel of John, with a Critical Introduction. 2 vols. Translated by M. D. Cusin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887.

Goodenough, Edwin R. "John: A Primitive Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945): Part 2:145-82.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gundry, Robert H. "In my Father's House are many Monai' (John 14 2)." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967):68-72.

Haas, N. "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar." Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970):38-59.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Edited by Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Harris, Gregory H. "Satan's Work as a Deceiver." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):190-202.

Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Gospel According to John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1071-1122. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962

Hart, H. St. J. "The Crown of Thorns in John 19, 2-5." Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1952):66-75.

Hendriksen, W. Exposition of the Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-54.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Hengstenberg, E. W. Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865-71.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Higgins, A. J. B. "The Origins of the Eucharist." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):200-9.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Angel at Bethesda--John 5:4." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:541 (January-March 1979):25-39.

_____. "Coming to the Light--John 3:20-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):314-22.

_____. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. "Grace after Grace--John 1:16." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):34-45.

_____. "Rivers of Living Water--John 7:37-39." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):239-48.

_____. "Those Who Have Done Good--John 5:28-29." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):158-66.

_____. "Untrustworthy Believers--John 2:23-25." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):139-52.

_____. "Water and Spirit--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "Water and Wind--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): The Text." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:544 (October-December 1979):318-32.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hoskyns, Edwin Clement. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1940.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1982 ed. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; et al. S.v. "Gabbatha," by D. J. Wieand.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 3rd ed. Revised. Translated by Norman Perrin. London: SCM, 1966.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Vol. 12 in the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kysar, Robert. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

Lacomara, Aelred. "Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):65-84.

Lancaster, Jerry R., and Overstreet, R. Larry. "Jesus' Celebration of Hanukkah in John 10." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):318-33.

Laney, J. Carl. "Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):55-66.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80; reprint ed., 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 9: The Gospel According to John, by J. P. Lange. Translated, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff.

Lea, Thomas D. "The Reliability of History in John's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):387-402.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed. Revised by H. S. Jones and R. Mackenzie. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.

Lightfoot, J. B. Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893.

Lightfoot, R. H. St. John's Gospel: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible series. London: Oliphants, 1972.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Macdonald, John. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM, 1964.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Abingdon Press, 1979.

Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

McCoy, Brad. "Obedience Is Necessary to Receive Eternal Life." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:5 (September-October 1994):1, 3.

McKay, Kenneth L. "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15-17." Novum Testamentum 27 (1985):319-33.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Mitchell, John G. An Everlasting Love: A Devotional Study of the Gospel of John. Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1982.

Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to John. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Neirynck, Frans. Evangelica: Gospel Studies--Etudes d'Evangile. Collected Essays. Edited by F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982; reprint ed. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1987.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel. 1929. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1968.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Patrick, Johnstone G. "The Promise of the Paraclete." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):333-45.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Swengel, Pa.: I. C. Herendeen, 1945; 3 vols. in 1 reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968.

Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek series. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

Pryor, John W. "John 4:44 and the Patris of Jesus." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987):254-63.

Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

Reynolds, Edwin E. "The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9:1-2 (1998):150-59.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 3rd ed. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919.

Sanders, J. N. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. Edited and compiled by B. A. Mastin. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.

Saucy, Mark R. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Sava, A. F. "The Wound in the Side of Christ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957):343-46.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

_____. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978.

Smith, David. "Jesus and the Pharisees in Socio-Anthropological Perspective." Trinity Journal 6NS:2 (Autumn 1985):151-56.

Staley, Jeff. "The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48:2 (April 1986):241-63.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. Translated by D. M. Barton. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Strachen, R. H. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. 3rd ed. London: SCM Press, 1941.

Tacitus. The Histories and the Annals. 4 vols. With an English translation by John Jackson. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann, 1962-63.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Author's Testimony to Himself." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):214-23.

_____. "The Imagery of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):13-21.

_____. "John." In John--Acts. Vol. 9 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. John: The Gospel of Belief. 1948. Rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.

_____. "The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):300-8.

_____. "The Symphonic Structure of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June 1963):117-25.

_____. "Topics from the Gospel of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):37-46; 526 (April-June 1975):145-60; 527 (July-September 1975):229-41; 528 (October-December 1975):343-57.

Thatcher, Tom. "Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):435-48.

_____. "A New Look at Asides in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):428-39.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. elencho, by F. Büchsel.

_____. S.v., lithos, by Joachim Jeremias.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Plan of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):313-23.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 50:4 (1931):229-41.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Significance of the First Sign in John's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:533 (January-March 1977):45-51.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. New Edition. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1915.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

Westcott, B. F. The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1958.

_____. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1989.

Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem as Jesus knew it: Archaeology as Evidence. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Witmer, John A. "Did Jesus Claim to Be God?" Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):147-56.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Jacob's Well," by R. L. Alden.

_____. S.v. "Spikenard," by W. E. Shewell-Cooper.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-4@

Haydock: John (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.

INTRODUCTION

St. John, the evangelist, a native of Bathsaida, in Galilee, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was by profession a fisherman. Our Lord gave to John, and to James, his brother, the surname of Boanerges, or, sons of thunder; most probably for their great zeal, and for their soliciting permission to call fire from heaven to destroy the city of the Samaritans, who refused to receive their Master. St. John is supposed to have been called to the apostleship younger than any of the other apostles, not being more than twenty-five or twenty-six years old. The Fathers teach that he never married. Our Lord had for him a particular regard, of which he gave the most marked proofs at the moment of his expiring on the cross, by intrusting to his care his virgin Mother. He is the only one of the apostles that did not leave his divine Master in his passion and death. In the reign of Domitian, he was conveyed to Rome, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he came out unhurt. He was afterwards banished to the island of Patmos, where he wrote his book of Revelations; and, according to some, his Gospel. Tota antiquitas in eo abunde consentit, quod Domitianus exilii Joannis auctor fuerit. (Lampe. Proleg. lib. i. cap. 4.) --- In his gospel, St. John omits very many leading facts and circumstances mentioned by the other three evangelists, supposing his readers sufficiently instructed in points which his silence approved. It is universally agreed, that St. John had seen and approved of the other three gospels. (St. Hier. [St. Jerome,] de vir. illust. Eusebius, lib. iii, chap. 24.) --- St. Luke, says a learned author, seems to have had more learning than any other of the evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education. --- St. Denis, of Alexandria, found in the gospel of St. John, elegance and precision of language, not only in the choice and arrangement of expressions, but also in his mode of reasoning and construction. We find here, says this saint, nothing barbarous and improper, nothing even low and vulgar; insomuch, that God not only seems to have given him light and knowledge, but also the means of well clothing his conceptions. (Dion. Alex. [Denis of Alexandria] apud Euseb. lib. vii, chap. 25.) --- Our critics do not join with St. Denis. They generally conceive St. John, with respect to language, as the least correct of the writers of the New Testament. His style argues a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education: but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths, by the supernatural lights, by the depth of the mysteries, by the superexcellency of the matter, by the solidity of his thoughts, and importance of his instructions. The Holy Ghost, who made choice of him, and filled him with infused wisdom, is much above human philosophy and the art of rhetoric. He possesses, in a most sovereign degree, the talent of carrying light and conviction to the mind, and warmth to the heart. He instructs, convinces, and persuades, without the aid of art or eloquence. --- St. John is properly compared to the eagle, because in his first flight he ascends above all sublunary objects, and does not stop till he meets the throne of the Almighty. He is so sententious, says St. Ambrose, that he gives us as many mysteries as words. (De Sacram. lib. iii, chap. 2) --- From Patmos our saint returned to Ephesus, where he died. (Euseb. lib. iii. hist. eccles.) --- It is said that the original gospel was preserved in the church of Ephesus till the seventh age [century], at least till the fourth; for St. Peter, of Alexandria, cites it. See Chron. Alex. and manuscript fragment. de paschate apud Petav. et Usher. --- Besides the gospel, we have of St. John three epistles and the Book of Revelations; and though other productions have been palmed on the world under the name of our evangelist, the Catholic Church only approves of those above specified. Ancient Fathers have given him the name of the Theologian: a title his gospel, and particularly the first chapter, deserves. Polycratus, bishop of Ephesus, tells us that St. John carried on his forehead a plate of gold, as priest of Jesus Christ, to honour the priesthood of the new law, in imitation of the high priests of the Jews. (Polycr. apud Euseb. liv. v, chap. 24.) --- This gospel was written in Greek, about the end of the first hundred years from Christ's nativity, at the request of the bishops of the Lesser Asia [Asia Minor], against the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, and those heretics, or Antichrists, as St. John calls them, (1 John iv. 3.) who pretended that Jesus was a mere man, who had no being or existence before he was born of Joseph and Mary. The blasphemies of these heretics had divers abettors in the first three ages [centuries], as Carpocrates, Artemon, the two Theodotus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and some others; on whom, see St. Irenæus, St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine, &c. To these succeeded, in the beginning of the fourth century, Arius, of Alexandria, and the different branches of the blasphemous Arian sect. They allowed that Jesus Christ had a being before he was born of Mary; that he was made and created before all other creatures, and was more perfect than any of them; but still that he was no more than a creature: that he had a beginning, and that there was a time when he was not: that he was not properly God, or the God, not the same God, nor had the same substance and nature, with the eternal Father and Creator of all things. This heresy was condemned by the Church in the first General Council, at Nice, ann. 325. --- After the Arians rose up the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost; and afterwards the Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. In every age pride and ignorance have produced some heresies; for, as the Apostle says, (1 Corinthians xi. 19.) there must be heresies. Towards the beginning of the sixteenth age [century] Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, &c. set themselves up for reformers, even of that general and Catholic faith which they found every where taught, and believed in all Christian Churches. Luther owns that he was then alone, the only one of his communion, (if so it may be called); yet none of these called in question the mysteries of the Trinity, or of the Incarnation. --- But not many years after, came the blasphemous sect of the Socinians, so called from Lælius and Faustus Socini. These, and their followers, renewed the condemned errors of the Arians. We scarce find any thing new in the systems of these men, who would pass for somebody, like Theodas, Acts v. 36.; or who, like Simon, the magician, and first heretic, would be looked upon as great men, and great wits, by daring to be free-thinkers, and thereby bold blasphemers. --- To do justice to Calvin, he did not think these Socinians fit to live in any Christian society: and therefore he got Michael Servetus burnt alive at Geneva, ann. 1553; and Valentinus Gentilis, one of the same sect, was beheaded at Berne, ann. 1565. I must needs say, it seems an easier matter to excuse the warm sharp zeal of Calvin, and his Swiss brethren, in persecuting to death these Socinians with sword and faggot, than to shew with what justice and equity these men could be put to death, who followed the very same principle, and the only rule of faith; i.e. Scriptures expounded by every man's private reason, or private spirit; which the pretended Reformers, all of them, maintain with as much warmth as ever, to the very day. --- Heretics in all ages have wrested the sense of the Scriptures, to make them seem to favour their errors: and by what we see so frequently happen, it is no hard matter for men who have but a moderate share of wit and sophistry, by their licentious fancies and arbitrary expositions, to turn, change, and pervert Scripture texts, and to transform almost any thing into any thing, says Dr. Hammond, on the second chapter of St. John's Revelation. But I need not fear to say, this never appeared so visibly as in these last two hundred years; the truth of which no one can doubt, who reads the History of the Variations, written by the learned bishop of Meaux. --- These late Reformers seem to make a great part of their religion consist in reading, or having at least the Bible in their mother-tongue. The number of translations into vulgar languages, with many considerable differences, is strangely multiplied. Every one rashly claims a right to expound them according to his private judgment, or his private spirit. And what is the consequence of this; but that as men's judgments and their private interpretations are different, so in a great measure are the articles of their creed and belief? --- The Scriptures, in which are contained the revealed mysteries of divine faith, are, without all doubt, the most excellent of all writings: these divers volumes, written by men inspired from God, contained not the words of men, but the word of God, which can save our souls: (1 Thessalonians ii. 13. and James i. 21.) but then they ought to be read, even by the learned, with the spirit of humility; with a fear of mistaking the true sense, as so many have done; with a due submission to the Catholic Church, which Christ himself commanded us to hear and obey. This we might learn from the Scripture itself. The apostle told the Corinthians, that even in those days there were many who corrupted and adulterated the word of God. (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) St. Peter gives us this admonition: that in the Epistles of St. Paul, are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. --- It was merely to prevent and remedy this abuse of the best of books, that it was judged necessary to forbid the ignorant to read the Scriptures in vulgar languages, without the advice and permission of their pastors and spiritual guides, whom Christ appointed to govern his Church. (Acts xx. 28.) The learned University of Paris, 1525, at that time, and in those circumstances, judged the said prohibition necessary: and whosoever hath had any discourses with persons of different religions and persuasions in our kingdom, especially with Anabaptists, Quakers, and such as pretend to expound the Scriptures, either by their private reason or by the private spirit, will, I am confident, be fully convinced that the just motives of the said prohibition subsist to this very day. Ignorant men and women turn Scripture texts to the errors of their private sects, and wrest them to their own perdition; as the very best of remedies prove pernicious and fatal to those who know not their virtues, nor how to use them, and apply them. --- They might learn from the Acts of the Apostles, (Chap. xv.) that as soon as a doubt and dispute was raised, whether the Gentiles converted by the apostles, were obliged to observe any of the ceremonies of the law of Moses, this first controversy about religion was not decided by the private judgment, or private spirit, even of those apostolical preachers, but by an assembly or council of the apostles and bishops, held at Jerusalem; as appears by the letter of the council sent to the Christians at Antioch. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, &c. to us, whom Christ promised to direct by the Spirit of truth; with whom, he assured us, he would remain to the end of the world. --- The very same method, as it is evident by the annals of Church history, hath been practised to the very time, and will be to the end of the world. It is the rule grounded on the command and promises of Christ, when he founded and established the Christian Church. All disputes about the sense of the Scriptures, and about points of the Christian belief, have been always decided by the successors of St. Peter, and the other apostles; even by general councils, when judged necessary: and they who, like Arius, obstinately refused to submit their private judgment to that of the Catholic Church, were always condemned, excommunicated, and cut off from the communion of the Church of Christ. --- Nor is this rule and this submission to be understood of the ignorant and unlearned only, but also of men accomplished in all kind of learning. The ignorant fall into errors for want of knowledge, and the learned are many times blinded by their pride and self-conceit. The sublime and profound mysteries, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, the manner of Christ's presence in the holy sacrament, are certainly above the reach of man's weak reason and capacity; much less are they the object of our senses, which are so often deceived. Let every reader of the sacred volumes, who pretends to be a competent judge of the sense, and of the truths revealed in them, reflect on the words which he finds in Isaias: (Chap. lv. 8, 9) For my thoughts are not your thoughts; nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to know, to demonstrate, what is possible or impossible to the incomprehensible power of God? --- A self-conceited Socinian, big with the opinion he has of his own wit and knowledge, will boldly tell us, that to say or believe that three distinct persons are one and the same God, is a manifest contradiction. Must we believe him? Or the Christian Catholic Church, in all ages? That is, against the greatest authority upon earth: whether we consider the Church as the most illustrious society and body of men; or whether we consider the same Church as under the protection of Christ and his divine promises, to teach them all truth to the end of the world. Besides this, experience itself should make the said Socinian distrust his own judgment as to such a pretended contradiction, when he finds that the brightest wits, and most subtle philosophers, after all their study and search of natural causes and effects, for so many hundred years, by the light of their reason could never yet account for the most common and obvious things in nature, such as are the parts of matter, and extension, local motion, and the production of numberless vegetables and animals, which we see happen, but know not how. See the author of a short answer to the late Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, concerning the divinity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost. An. 1729. --- The latest writers among the pretended Reformers hesitate not to tell us, that what the Church and its councils have declared, as to Christ's real presence in the holy sacrament, is contradicted by all our senses; as if our senses, which are so often mistaken, were the supreme and only judges of such hidden mysteries. Another tells us, that for Christ to be truly and really present in many places, in ten thousand places at once, is a thing impossible in nature and reason; and his demonstrative proof is, that he knows it to be impossible. With this vain presumption, he runs on to this length of extravagant rashness, and boldly pronounces, that should he find such a proposition in the Bible, nay, though with his eyes he should see a man raise the dead, and declare that proposition true, he could not believe it: and merely because he knows it impossible: which is no more than to say, that it does not seem possible to his weak reason. I do not find that he offers to bring any other proof, but that it is contrary to his senses, and that God cannot assert a contradiction. And why must we take it for a contradiction, only because he tells us, he knows it to be so? It was certainly the safest way for him, to bring no reasons to shew it impossible to the infinite and incomprehensible power of the Almighty: this vain attempt would only have given new occasions to his learned antagonist, the author of the Single Combat, to expose his weakness even more than he has done. --- May not every Unitarian, every Arian, every Socinian, every Latitudinarian, every Free-thinker, tell us the same? And if this be a sufficient plea, none of them can be condemned of heresy or error. Calvin could never silence Servetus, (unless it were by lighting faggots round him) if he did but say, I know that three distinct persons cannot be one and the same God. It is a contradiction, and God cannot assert a contradiction. I know that the Son cannot be the same God with the Father. It is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. So that though I find clear texts in the Scriptures, that three give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one: though Christ, the Son of God, tells us, that he and the Father are one, or one thing; nay, though I should with my own eyes, see men raise the dead to confirm these mysteries, (as many are recorded to have done) and declare them to be revealed divine truths, I cannot believe them, because I know them to be false, to be nonsense, to be contradictions to reason and nature. The like the Free-thinker may tell us, with the Pelagians, as to the existence of original sin, that all men should become liable to eternal death for Adam's sinning; with the Manicheans, that men cannot have free will to do, or abstain from, sinful actions, and yet God know infallibly from eternity what they will do; with the Origenists, that God, who is infinite goodness itself, will not punish sinners eternally, for yielding to what the inclinations of their corrupt nature prompt them. They have the same right to tell all Christendom, that they know these pretended revealed mysteries to be nonsense, impossibilities, and contradictions. And every man's private judgment, when, with an air of confidence, he says, I know it, must pass for infallible; though he will not hear of the Catholic Church being infallible, under the promises of our Saviour, Christ. --- But to conclude this preface, already much longer than I designed, reason itself, as well as the experience we have of our own weak understanding, from the little we know even of natural things, might preserve every sober thinking man from such extravagant presumption, pride and self-conceited rashness, as to pretend to measure God's almighty and incomprehensible power by the narrow and shallow capacity of human understanding, or to know what is possible or impossible for Him that made all things out of nothing. In fine, let not human understanding exalt itself against the knowledge of God, but bring into a rational captivity and submission every thought to the obedience of Christ. Let every one humbly acknowledge with the great St. Augustine, whose learning and capacity, modestly speaking, were not inferior to those of any of those bold and rash pretenders to knowledge, that God can certainly do more than we can understand. Let us reflect with St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxxvii. p. 597. C.) that if we know not the things under our feet, we must not pretend to fathom the profound mysteries of God. [1] --- And, in the mean time, let us pray for those who are thus tossed to and fro with every wind and blast of different doctrines, (Ephesians iv. 14.) that God, of his infinite mercy, would enlighten their weak and blinded understanding with the light of the one true faith, and bring them to the one fold of his Catholic Church. (Witham)

____________________

[1] Naz. Orat. xxxvii. Greek: Mede ta en posin eidenai dunamenoi ... me theou bathesin embateuein.

====================

Gill: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JOHN

The author of this Gospel is John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the brother of James the greater; he outlived the rest of the disciples, and wrote this Gospel after the other evangelists; and in it many things are recorded, which are not in the other Gospels; as various discourses of Christ, and miracles done by him; several incidents in his life, and circumstances that attended his sufferings and death: the occasion of it is generally thought to be the errors of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ, asserted he was a mere man, and that he did not exist before his incarnation; and the design of it is to confute them: and it is easy to observe, that he begins his Gospel with the divinity of Christ; asserts him to be God, and proves him to be truly and properly so, by the works of creation, which were wrought by him, as well as shows that he was really man. Clemens ^a calls this Gospel of John, pneumatikon euaggelion "a spiritual Gospel", as indeed it is; consisting of the spiritual discourses of our Lord, on various occasions, both at the beginning, and in the course of his ministry, and especially a little before his sufferings and death: and the same writer observes, that John, the last of the evangelists, considering that in the other Gospels were declared the things relating to the body of Christ, that is, to him, as he was after the flesh; to his genealogy and birth as man; to what was done to him, or by him, in his infancy; to his baptism, temptations, journeys, &c. at the request of his familiar friends, and moved by the Spirit of God, composed this Gospel. Moreover, it is observed by some ^b, that the other three evangelists only record what was done by Christ, in one year after John the Baptist was cast into prison, as appears from Mat 4:12 wherefore John, at the entreaty of his friends, put these things into his Gospel, which were done or said by Christ, before John was cast into prison. He was called very early by Christ, though young; and was with him throughout the whole of his ministry, and was an eye and ear witness of what he here relates, and his testimony is to be received; he was the beloved disciple, he leaned on the bosom of Jesus, and had great intimacy with him; and might be privy to some things, which others were not acquainted with; and though he was a Galilean, and an unlearned man, Act 4:13 yet being endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, he was abundantly qualified to write this book: for what some ancient writers ^c say of him, that he was a priest, and wore a plate, that is, of gold upon his forehead, cannot be true, since he was not of the tribe of Levi; and besides, only the high priest wore that upon his mitre; unless they mean, as seems most likely, that he was a Christian bishop: perhaps the mistake may arise from John the Baptist, who was of the priestly order, and is called by some Jewish writers ^d, John the high priest. When and where this Gospel was written, is not certain; some say in ^e Asia, after he had wrote his Revelation in Patmos; and others say particularly, that it was wrote at Ephesus; the title of it in the Syriac version, signifies much, which runs thus;

"the holy Gospel, the preaching of John, which he spoke and published in Greek at Ephesus.''

And to the same purpose is the title of it in the Persic version;

"the Gospel of John, one of the twelve apostles, which was spoken in the city of Ephesus, in the Greek Roman tongue.''

College: John (Book Introduction)

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

Even the casual reader of the New Testament will notice that the first three accounts of Jesus' life are generally similar in their overall story line, whereas the fourth Gospel (John) is quite different. Scholars refer to Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the Synoptic Gospels (Synoptic = "seen together" or "as parallel") because of their similarities, but John is called, well . . . John (no special name). It is part of the New Testament collection known as the Johannine Writings (John, 1, 2, 3 John, and Revelation).

The differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are readily apparent to the alert reader. For example the Synoptics all present one major trip of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, whereas John portrays Jesus as being in Judea and Jerusalem often. Indeed, for John the primary ministry of Jesus seems to be in Judea rather than the Galilean setting of the Synoptics. Another difference is seen in John's lack of true parables in his recorded teachings of Jesus. In the Synoptics, parables are the characteristic form of Jesus' teaching, with the often repeated introduction, "Jesus told them a parable, saying, 'the kingdom of God is like this . . . .'" John is also loaded with characters we do not find in the Synoptics: Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well, and Lazarus, just to name a few. Furthermore, some of our most memorable Gospel phrases are not found in the Synoptics, but only in John: "In the beginning was the Word." "Behold the Lamb of God!" "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son." "I am the way, the truth, and the life." "I am the vine." "What is truth?" "It is finished!" "So send I you." By some estimates about 90% of the material found in John is not found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Christian scholars have noticed these differences from ancient times. Clement of Alexandria, writing approximately AD 185, called John the "spiritual Gospel." By this, Clement did not mean that John was nonhistorical, but that John was more concerned with internal, spiritual matters. In the more recent past overly critical scholars have pronounced the differences between John and the Synoptics to be irreconcilable and concluded that John is, in effect, the first commentary on the Gospels. This assumption (that John is historical fiction) exists in many commentaries of previous generations and is still held by some today. In general, though, current scholarship is much less certain about the nonhistorical character of John. In this commentary we assume that John relates a historically reliable version of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, albeit quite different from that of the Synoptic Gospels. These differences are part of what makes the study of this book so fascinating and will be discussed at the appropriate places through the commentary.

WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

We have been writing as if we knew for sure that John was the author of this Gospel. But this begs the question, how do we know for sure that John wrote it, and if so, which John was this? To answer the first question in complete honesty, we do not know for sure who wrote this book, for it was published anonymously in line with the publishing standards of the ancient world. We do have some very early witnesses to John as the author, however. The so-called "Muratorian Canon" (date disputed, but probably AD 150-200) says, "John, one of the disciples, wrote the fourth book of the Gospel." An early church leader by the name of Irenaeus (AD 185) is also an important witness. Tradition claims that Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp of Smyrna, and that Polycarp was a student of John himself. This means that Irenaeus is only one generation of believers removed from John, which gives added weight to what he writes. Irenaeus states in no uncertain terms that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel (in his book Against Heresies 3.1.1).

Some scholars have suggested, however, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was indeed a man named John, but not John the Apostle. It is true that there were other early Christian leaders named John, and it is possible that one of them is the true author of the Fourth Gospel. This issue may be addressed by determining the identity of the so-called "beloved disciple" within the book of John.

In John 21:20-24 the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the author of the book. If we work backwards through the book, we encounter the beloved disciple in other places. He is the one who recognizes Jesus after the resurrection during the miraculous catch of fish (21:7). Jesus entrusts the care for his mother, Mary, to this disciple while hanging on the cross (19:26-27). This disciple reclines next to Jesus at the Last Supper (13:23, 25). The beloved disciple is intended to be seen in some places where he is simply called the "other disciple." He is the one who races Peter to the tomb on Easter morning, and arrives first (20:3-5, probably indicating that he was younger than Peter). It is the "other disciple" who gains entrance for Peter and himself into the high priest's courtyard during the interrogation of Jesus (18:15-16). The "other disciple" may also be the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist who, along with Andrew, is pointed to Jesus by the Baptist himself (1:35-40).

The intimacy the beloved disciple has with Jesus points to one of the inner circle of disciples. In the Synoptic Gospels, this "inner circle" is pictured as Peter, James, and John. Peter is clearly not the author of the Fourth Gospel, because he is often portrayed as being with the "beloved disciple." James is an unlikely candidate, because he suffers early martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). This leaves only John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James. This case is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Apostle John is named nowhere in the Fourth Gospel (nor is James, the only reference being to the "sons of Zebedee" at 21:2). It is not easy to understand why any other early Christian writer would have omitted the name of such a prominent Apostle. The solution to the mystery is that we are intended to see John himself as the author, and that he does not mention himself except as the "beloved disciple" or the "other disciple." We should also note that this is not an expression of pride (he "loved me best"). It is an expression of deep humility, wonderment, and thankfulness on the part of the author: Jesus loved me, even me?!

WHEN AND WHERE WAS IT WRITTEN?

Many locations have been suggested as the place of composition for the Gospel of John, but the traditional site is the city of Ephesus. The ruins of Ephesus are in southwestern Turkey, near the modern city of Kusadasi. Ephesus was one of the largest and most important cities of the Roman Empire in the first century. Ephesus was the site of the Temple of Artemis (sometimes incorrectly called the Temple of Diana, see Acts 19:28). This temple was recognized as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world according to the Greek geographer, Strabo. This large city (perhaps as many as 500,000 inhabitants) had a very mixed population. There was a strong Christian community in Ephesus, for Paul had a three-year ministry there in the AD 50s. The presence of the Temple of Artemis shows that there was also a strong pagan community, dedicated to the worship of the ancient Greek gods. Overall it was a large, cosmopolitan city, with a well-developed Greek culture. The common language of the city would have been Greek, the language of the New Testament.

Although it cannot be proven, there is strong tradition that the Apostle John, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, made his way to Ephesus sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. John, at least, was probably in Ephesus during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). After a few years, Domitian seems to have actively persecuted the Christian community, and this atmosphere of persecution probably forms the background for the Fourth Gospel, written sometime between AD 85-95. Also, by this time, the Jewish synagogue community had solidified in its opposition to the Christians, and Jews had to make a choice between the two. Jews who chose to believe in Jesus were "thrown out of the synagogue," a circumstance mentioned by John (9:22; 16:2).

This makes John one of the last books of the New Testament to be written, and certainly the last of the Gospels. If we theorize that John was about 20 when Jesus was crucified (AD 30), then he would have been 75-85 years old when this book was written, a very old man in the ancient world. For this and other reasons, it is likely that John had quite a bit of help in writing this book. Some scholars want to speak of the "Johannine community" or the "community of the beloved disciple" as the author, and there is some merit to this (cf. 21:24, "we know his testimony in true"). For our purposes, however, we will assume that the Apostle John, an eyewitness to many of the Gospel events, is the primary author of this book.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JOHN?

First, we would say that the style of John's writing is simple, but its thought is profound. John is written in some of the simplest Greek in the New Testament, although this does not mean it is "bad" Greek. It uses many common words, many monosyllabic words, and relatively short sentences. Yet the message of the book is profound. Fred Craddock notes that this is a Gospel in which "a child can wade and an elephant can swim."

A second characteristic of John is that he has laid out the bulk of the book as a series of lengthy accounts of works followed by words. We can characterize these combinations as miraculous signs followed by discourses or sermons of Jesus. John has only seven miracles, five of which are not found in the Synoptic Gospels. The story of each of these miracles is told at some length, and the material of the sermon that follows is primarily material not found in the Synoptics.

A third characteristic of the Fourth Gospel is the emphasis upon the personal ministry of Jesus. John relates several one-on-one situations (e.g., Jesus with Nicodemus, chapter 3), which teach us that Jesus had an active private ministry. It was not all public preaching, although this was important, too. In John we see a Jesus who cares for people and has time for them. This has another side, however. Sometimes it emphasizes the aloneness of Jesus. He often seems to be by himself without the support of the disciples or anyone else, a solitary figure.

Fourthly, John has a highly developed theological interest. He is particularly concerned with the matter of Christology, explaining who Jesus is in relation to God. John lays stress on the divinity of Jesus, often referring to him as the Son or the Son of God. He also stresses the humanity of Jesus: he is thirsty at Sychar and weeps at the tomb of Lazarus. John develops the theme of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the one God sent to his people.

John also explores the nature of God the Father, particularly through the Father-Son relationship between Jesus and God. John emphasizes that faith for the Christian must be in both the Father and in the Son. And John also has a great deal of discussion about the Holy Spirit. This is found throughout the book, but particularly in the Farewell Discourses of chapters 13-17. Here the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the coming Paraclete or Advocate for the community of believers.

A fifth characteristic might also be called the purpose of John. This purpose is strongly evangelistic, to bring the readers to faith. There is a constant contrast in the Fourth Gospel between believers and unbelievers, between faith and unfaith. Toward the end of the book John lays out his purpose in very straightforward language, "These [things] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31).

HOW WILL THE STUDY OF JOHN

BE APPROACHED?

There are many possible ways to study John, but it is helpful to know what the primary emphasis will be in this commentary. Our main focus will be to listen carefully to what John is saying to us, to understand his intended message. This is not as easy as it may seem at first glance, for John is far removed from twentieth century English speakers. We want to know the general story, to pick up on the nuances, to be sensitive to the theological implications John is drawing out. For the most part we will not be concerned with evaluating the historical nature of John's account. When we bring historical data into the mix, it will be to help the reader understand the background of John's story, not to judge his accuracy. This is a modified narrative approach, an attempt to understand John's story as it is intended to be understood. While some may find this intolerably naïve, it is certainly the first and necessary step to a full appreciation of this marvelous book. If we can get you to listen to John carefully and hear his message, we will have succeeded in what we set out to do.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note: There are many, many commentaries and other books related to the study of John. Dr. Bryant's favorites were the ones by Rudolf Bultmann, Barnabas Lindars, and Raymond Brown (even though he had sharp disagreements with all of them). Bultmann has a great deal of excellent material, although his theological bent makes him difficult for less advanced students. Lindars is excellent in technical discussion, but spiritually dry. Brown is wordy, but often gives great insights. I think the finest commentary on John is that of D.A. Carson. While Carson may be too conservative for some, he never avoids the hard questions and takes the time necessary to do thorough exegesis. Other outstanding choices for the more advanced student include the commentary of C.K. Barrett and George Beasley-Murray's commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series. For the less advanced student the commentary by Paul Butler contains a wealth of accessible material, although written for an earlier generation.

Abbot, Ezra, Andrew P. Peabody, and J.B. Lightfoot. The Fourth Gospel: Evidences External and Internal of Its Johannean Authorship . London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892.

Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

Bacon, Benjamin W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate: A Series of Essays on Problems Concerning the Origin and Value of the Anonymous Writings Attributed to the Apostle John . New York: Moffatt, 1910.

. The Gospel of the Hellenists . New York: Holt, n.d., c.1933.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John . The Daily Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956.

Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John . Second Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

. The Gospel of John and Judaism . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Bauer, Walter. Das Johannesevangelium . Tübingen: Mohr, 1925.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John . Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco: Word, 1987.

Bernard, John H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 volumes. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928.

Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997.

Boice, James M. Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Borchert, Gerald L. John 1-11 . The New American Commentary 25A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.

Bowman, John. The Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther, and the Gospel of John . Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975.

Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979.

. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave . 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

. The Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. The Anchor Bible 29A-B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70.

Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.

Burney, Charles F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1922.

Butler, Paul. The Gospel of John . 2 volumes in 1. Bible Study Textbook Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1961.

Carpenter, Joseph E. The Johannine Writings: A Study of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. London: Constable, 1927.

Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Charlesworth, James H., editor. John and Qumran . London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972.

Colwell, Ernest C., The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, n.d., c. 1931.

Craddock, Fred B. John . Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Johannine Circle . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.

Culpepper, R. Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

. The Gospel and Letters of John . Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.

Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Drummond, James. An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. New York: Scribner, 1904.

Eisler, Robert. The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel . London: Methuen, 1938.

Erdman, Charles R. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1917.

Fortna, Robert T. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Foster, R.C. Studies in the Life of Christ . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. Reprint, Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Gardner-Smith, Percival. St. John and the Synoptic Gospels . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Gnilka, J. Johannesevangelium . Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1983.

Godet, Frederic. Commentary on the Gospel of John . Translated by Timothy Dwight. 2 volumes. New York: Funk & Wagnall, 1886.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John . Hermeneia Series. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. (German ed., 1980.)

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954.

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question . Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.

Higgins, A.J.B. The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel . London: Lutterworth, 1960.

Hoskyns, Edwyn C. The Fourth Gospel. 2 volumes. London: Faber, 1940. Revised. ed. in one vol., 1947.

Howard, Wilbert F. Christianity According to St. John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946.

. The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation . London: Epworth, 1931.

Howard, Wilbert F., and Arthur J. Gossip. "The Gospel According to St. John." In Interpreter's Bible 7:437-811. Nashville: Abingdon/ Cokesbury, 1952.

Hunter, Archibald M. According to John . The Cambridge Bible Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1968.

. The Gospel According to John . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Jauncey, James H. The Compelling Indwelling [Studies on John 15]. Chicago: Moody, 1972.

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Scribners Reference, 1977.

Jervell, Jacob. Jesus in the Gospel of John . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Kysar, Robert. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.

. John . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.

. John's Story of Jesus . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

. John, the Maverick Gospel . Atlanta: John Knox, 1976. Reprinted Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

Lee, Edwin Kenneth. The Religious Thought of St. John . London: S.P.C.K., 1950.

Lenski, R.C.H. Interpretation of John's Gospel . Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936.

Leon-Dufour, Xavier. Dictionary of the New Testament . New York: Harper & Row, 1980.

Lightfoot, Robert H. St. John's Gospel . Edited by C.F. Evans. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John . New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

MacGregor, George H.C. The Gospel of John . The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928.

MacGregor, George H.C., and A.Q. Morton. The Structure of the Fourth Gospel. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961.

Maier G. Johannes-Evangelium . BKNT 6. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1984.

Marsh, John. The Gospel of St. John . Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel . New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

. The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters . New York: Paulist, 1979.

McGarvey, J.W., and P.Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel or a Harmony of the Four Gospels . Cincinnati: Standard, 1914.

Michaels, J.R. John . San Francisco: Harper, 1984.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Montefiore, C.G., and H. Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Schocken Books, 1974.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to St. John . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

. Reflections on the Gospel of John . 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.

. Studies in the Fourth Gospel . Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969.

Murray, John O.F. Jesus according to St. John . London: Longmans, 1936.

Nicol, W. Semeia in the Fourth Gospel . Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Nolloth, Charles F. The Fourth Evangelist: His Place in the Development of Religious Thought. London: J. Murray, 1925.

O'Neill, J.C. Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World . Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner, 1968.

Pack, Frank. The Gospel according to John . Living Word Commentaries. Austin: Sweet, 1975.

Palmer, Earl F. The Intimate Gospel . Waco: Word, 1978.

Plummer, Alfred. The Gospel according to St. John. Cambridge Greek Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Rainsford, Marcus. Our Lord Prays: Thoughts on John XVII . London: 1873; reprint Chicago: Moody, 1950.

Redlich, Edwin B. An Introduction to the Fourth Gospel . London: Longmans, 1939.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Rigg, William Harrison. The Fourth Gospel and Its Message for Today . London: Lutterworth, 1952.

Robinson, John A.T. The Priority of John . London: SCM Press, 1985.

Sanday, William. The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel . London: Macmillan, 1872.

. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel . New York: Scribner, 1905.

Sanders, J.N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

Sanders, J.N., and B.A. Mastin. The Gospel according to St. John . Black's New Testament Commentaries. London: A.& C. Black, 1968.

Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Johannes . Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John . 3 volumes. Translated by Cecily Hastings, et al. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Sidebottom, E.M. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel . London: SPCK, 1961.

Sloyan, Gerard S. John . Interpretation Commentary Series. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.

Smith, D. Moody. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965.

. John . Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Smith, D. Moody, C. Clifton Black, and R. Alan Culpepper, eds. Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith . Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996.

Smith, Jonathan R. The Teaching of the Gospel of John . New York: Revell, 1903.

Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John . New York: Scribner, 1894.

Strachan, Robert H. The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian? London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925.

. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment . 3rd Revised Edition. London, S.C.M. Press, 1941.

Tasker, Randolph V.G. The Gospel according to St. John . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale, 1960.

Temple, William. Readings in St. John's Gospel . 2 volumes. London: Macmillan, 1939-40; one volume edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1955.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Gospel of John." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 93-203. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

. John: the Gospel of Belief . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1948), 1954.

Turner, George A., and Julius R. Mantey. The Gospel according to John . The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Wead, David. The Literary Devices in John's Gospel . Basel: Komm. Friedrich Reinhardt, 1970.

Weber, Gerard P. and Robert Miller. Breaking Open the Gospel of John . Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1995.

Westcott, Brooke F. The Gospel according to St .John . London: John Murray, 1882.

. The Gospel according to St. John; the Greek Text with Introduction and Notes . 2 volumes. London: John Murray, 1908. Reprinted in 1 volume, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Witherington, Ben, III. John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs

BDF A Greek Grammar of the New Testament by Blass, Debrunner and Funk

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DNT Dictionary of the New Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

KJV King James Version

LSJ Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell, Scott and Jones

NASB New American Standard Bible

LXX Septuagint

NIV New International Version

NLT New Living Translation

NovT Novum Testamentum

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: John (Outline)

OUTLINE

A good outline is more than half the battle in one's understanding and remembering the contents of any book. There is more than one way to break up and organize the materials in the Gospel according to John. Most students have observed two large divisions in its structure: (1) chapters 1-12 and (2) chapters 13-21. These larger units include a prologue (1:1-18) and an epilogue (chapter 21). Perhaps the easiest way to organize the materials of the book for commentary purposes might be to number the larger units of thought in the book (over fifty such units) and comment successively on these from the beginning of the book to the end. One may endeavor, however, to organize the materials of the Fourth Gospel in some kind of elaborate outline, structured under the two large divisions noted above. We follow this latter procedure below:

I. JESUS MANIFESTS HIMSELF TO THE WORLD - 1:1-12:50

A. The Prologue - 1:1-18

1. The Logos before Time - 1:1-4

a. His Relationship to Deity - 1:1-2

b. His Relationship to the World - 1:3-4

2. The Logos Manifested in History - 1:5-18

a. John the Baptist's Initial Testimony to the Logos - 1:5-13

b. The Logos in Flesh - 1:14-18

B. The Testimony of John the Baptist and of Jesus' First Disciples - 1:19-51

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist - 1:19-34

a. The Testimony of John to the Jewish Leaders - 1:19-28

b. The Testimony of John to the Jewish People - 1:29-34

2. Jesus' Calling and the Testifying of His First Disciples - 1:35-51

a. John the Baptist's Disciples Follow Jesus - 1:35-42

b. Jesus' Calling of Philip and Nathanael - 1:43-51

C. Jesus' First Signs - 2:1-25

1. Jesus Changes Water into Wine - 2:1-12

2. Jesus Cleanses the Temple - 2:13-22

3. Summary of Response to Jesus - 2:23-25

D. Jesus and Nicodemus - 3:1-36

1. The New Birth - 3:1-10

2. The Son of Man - 3:11-21

3. The Further Testimony of John the Baptist - 3:22-30

4. The Son's Testimony - 3:31-36

E. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:1-42

1. Introduction - 4:1-4

2. Jesus and the Woman of Samaria - 4:5-30

a. The Setting - 4:5-6

b. Jesus' Request for Water - 4:7-9

c. Living Water - 4:10-15

d. The Woman Revealed - 4:16-19

e. Jesus Reveals Himself - 4:20-26

f. Reactions to Jesus - 4:27-30

3. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:31-42

a. Jesus and the Testifying of His disciples - 4:31-38

b. Firsthand and Secondhand Testimony - 4:39-42

F. Jesus' Healing of the Nobleman's Son, the Second Sign at Cana - 4:43-54

1. Introduction - 4:43-45

2. The Healing of the Nobleman's Son - 4:46-54

G. Jesus and the Major Jewish Festivals - 5:1-12:50

1. A Feast, the Sabbath, and Jesus' Healing at the Pool in Jerusalem - 5:1-47

a. The Healing on the Sabbath - 5:1-9a

b. Violations of the Sabbath and the Healed Man's Defense - 5:9b-15

c. Violations of the Sabbath and Jesus' Defense - 5:16-18

d. Jesus' Discourse on the Sabbath and His Work - 5:19-29

e. Jesus' Defense and the Four Witnesses - 5:30-47

2. The Passover and Jesus' Explanation of the Exodus - 6:1-71

a. The Background - 6:1-4

b. Jesus' Feeding of the Five Thousand - 6:5-13

c. Jesus, Not That Kind of King - 6:14-15

d. Jesus' Walking on the Sea of Galilee - 6:16-21

e. The Crowds' Search for Jesus - 6:22-25

f. Two Discourses on the Bread of Life - 6:26-34, 35-40

g. Conflict Concerning Bread from Heaven and Flesh and Blood - 6:41-59

h. Rejection and Acceptance of Jesus - 6:60-71

3. Jesus at Tabernacles - 7:1-52

a. Introduction: Question If Jesus Would Go to This Feast - 7:1-13

b. Jesus' Discourses Spoken during the Feast - 7:14-36

c. Jesus' Discourses Spoken on the Last Day of the Feast and the Audience's Response to it - 7:37-52

d. Textual Parenthesis: The Woman Taken in Adultery - 7:53-8:11

4. The Light of Tabernacles and Jesus' Great Confrontation with the Jews - 8:12-59

a. Jesus Discourse at the Temple Treasury: Jesus the Light of the World and the Authority of His Testimony to Himself - 8:12-20

b. Jesus' Attack on the Jews Who Disbelieved and the Origin of His Testimony and the Problem of Who He Is - 8:21-30

c. Truth, Sin, Freedom, and the Children of Abraham - 8:31-59

5. Healing of the Man Born Blind - 9:1-41

a. The Setting - 9:1-5

b. The Healing - 9:6-7

c. Interrogations of the Man - 9:8-34

(1) Questions Posed by the Neighbors and Friends - 9:8-12

(2) Preliminary Quizzing by Some Pharisees - 9:13-17

(3) The Man's Parents Questioned by the Jews - 9:18-23

(4) The Man Questioned a Second Time by the Jews, and Excommunicated - 9:24-34

d. Who Sees and Who Is Blind? Jesus' Answer - 9:35-41

6. The Feast of Dedication and the Shepherd Analogy - 10:1-42

a. Jesus, the Sheepgate, and the Shepherd - 10:1-21

(1) Figures from Shepherd Life - 10:1-6

(2) Explaining the Figure - 10:7-18

(a) Jesus is the Sheepgate - 10:7-10

(b) Jesus is the Good (or Model) Shepherd - 10:11-18

(3) Response to Jesus' Explanation: Rejection of Jesus by the Jews - 10:19-21

b. Jesus at the Feast of Dedication - 10:22-39

(1) Jesus the Messiah - 10:22-31

(a) Setting and Questions: "Is Jesus the Messiah?" - 10:22-24

(b) Jesus' Reply - 10:25-30

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Stone Jesus - 10:31

(2) Jesus the Son of God - 10:32-39

(a) The Question: Is Jesus Making Himself Equal with God - 10:32-33

(b) Jesus' Response - 10:34-38

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Arrest Jesus - 10:39

c. Jesus in Retrogression and Progression Simultaneously - 10:40-42

7. Lazarus and the Passover Plot - 11:1-57

a. Lazarus - 11:1-44

(1) Setting - 11:1-6

(2) Jesus' Discussion with the Disciples - 11:7-16

(3) Jesus and Martha: Jesus the Resurrection and the Life - 11:17-27

(4) Jesus and Mary and the Grieved - 11:28-37

(5) Jesus' Raising of Lazarus - 11:38-44

b. The Passover Plot to Kill Jesus - 11:45-53

c. Retreat of Jesus - 11:54-57

8. Preparation for Passover and Death - 12:1-50

a. Mary's Anointing of Jesus - 12:1-11

b. Jesus' Triumphal Entry - 12:12-19

c. Gentiles Prompt Jesus' Announcement of His Hour - 12:20-36

d. The Tragedy of Unbelief, Past and Present - 12:37-43

e. The Call to Faith Still Stands - 12:44-50

II. JESUS' MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF IN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION - 13:1-21:25

A. Jesus' Manifestation of Himself to His Disciples in His Farewell Discourses - 13:1-17:26

1. At the Last Supper - 13:1-38

a. Jesus' Washing of His Disciples' Feet - 13:1-17

b. Jesus' Prediction of Judas' Betrayal - 13:18-30

c. Jesus' Prediction of Peter's Denial; The New Commandment (13:34) - 13:31-38

2. Promises of Jesus - 14:1-31

a. Promises of an Abode where Jesus Is Going - 14:1-4

b. Jesus the Way to the Father - 14:5-12

c. Doing Greater Works than Jesus; Asking in Jesus' Name - 14:13-14

d. Jesus' Departure and the Spirit's Coming - 14:15-31

3. More Commands and Promises of Jesus - 15:1-27

a. Jesus, the Vine; the Disciples, the Branches; The New Commandment Given (15:13) - 15:1-17

b. Hatred from the World - 15:18-25

c. The Spirit's Mission Like That of the Disciples: to Bear Witness to Jesus - 15:26-27

4. Still More Promises and Commands - 16:1-33

a. The Works of Disbelief - 16:1-4

b. The Works of the Spirit - 16:5-15

c. Joy Greater than Trouble - 16:16-33

5. Jesus' Prayer - 17:1-26

a. For His Glorification - 17:1-5

b. For His Disciples - 17:6-19

c. For Those Who Will Believe - 17:20-26

(1) For Unity - 17:20-23

(2) For Seeing Jesus' Glory - 17:24-26

B. Jesus' Trial and Crucifixion - 18:1-19:42

1. Jesus' Arrest - 18:1-11

2. Jesus' Trial before Annas - 18:12-14

3. Peter's First Denial of Jesus - 18:15-18

4. Jesus Interrogated before Annas - 18:19-24

5. Peter's Second and Third Denials of Jesus - 18:25-27

6. Jesus' Trial before Pilate - 18:28-19:16

a. Pilate Doubtful of the Prosecution - 18:28-32

b. Pilate Examines Jesus - 18:33-38a

c. Barabbas - 18:38b-40

d. The Flogging of Jesus and Delivering Over of Him to the Jews by Pilate - 19:1-16

7. The Crucifixion of Jesus - 19:17-30

8. Piercing Jesus' Side - 19:31-37

9. Jesus' Burial - 19:38-42

C. The Resurrection of Jesus - 20:1-21:25

1. Peter and John at the Empty Tomb - 20:1-9

2. Jesus' Appearance to Mary - 20:10-18

3. Jesus' Appearance to the Disciples with Thomas Absent - 20:19-23

4. Jesus' Appearance to his Disciples with Thomas Present - 20:24-29

5. The Purpose of this Gospel - 20:30-31

6. Jesus' Appearance to Seven Disciples and the Great Haul of Fish - 21:1-14

7. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about Peter - 21:15-19

8. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about John - 21:20-23

9. Testimony to the Truthfulness of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:24

10. The Selective Nature of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: John (Book Introduction)

NOTICE TO THE READER.

Gospel of John Intro

——o——

AS it has been found impossible to compress the Translation of the Commentary upon S. John's Gospel into one volume, it is now given in two, of which this is the first. The second volume comprises the remainder of the Gospel, and the Commentary of À Lapide upon S. John's Epistles.

It is with great pleasure I present this portion of this great Commentary to the English reader. Admirable as Cornelius à Lapide almost invariably is in his exposition of Holy Scripture, on the Gospel of S. John he seems to me to surpass himself. Beginning from the Incarnation of the Divine Word, nothing can be more masterly, nothing more magnificent, than the way in which he shows that the whole sacramental system of the Catholic Church of Christ is the necessary consequence and complement, as well as the extension of the Incarnation, Divinely planned and ordained for the eternal salvation of the whole human race. Granted the truth of the Incarnation as an objective fact, dealing with realities both in the spiritual and immaterial universe, and also in the material and physical universe, in this world of time and sense, as we call it, I do not see how it is possible to dispute our author's conclusions, taken as a whole.

The translation of Vol. 1. is by myself as far as the end of the 6th chapter. From the 27th verse of 6th chapter to the end, I have translated practically without any abridgment or omission, and also with greater literalness than I sometimes do, on account of the surpassing importance of the doctrine treated of, and the controversies resulting from it. Chapters vii.-x. are by the Rev. James Bliss, Rector of Manningford Bruce. For the last chapter, the 11th, I am indebted to the Rev. S. J. Eales, M.A., D.C.L., lately Principal of S. Boniface's College, Warminster, and now Principal of the Grove College, Addlestone, Surrey.

In Volume II. the Translation of chap. xiii. is by a young scholar, Mr. Macpherson. The remainder of the Gospel is by my most kind friend, Mr. Bliss, and myself.

Of S. John's Epistles, the first three chapters of the First Epistle are by Mr. Bliss, the remaining two chapters, and the Second and Third Epistles, are by myself.

T. W. Mossman.

THE PREFACE

TO

S. JOHN'S GOSPEL

——o——

S. JOHN the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and Salome, wrote this Gospel in Asia in the Greek language, towards the end of his life, after his return from Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse.

His reasons for writing were two. The first was that he might confute the heretics Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ's Divinity, and taught that He was a mere man. The second was to supply the omissions of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Hence S. John records at length what Christ did during the first year of His ministry, which the other three had for the most part passed over.

Listen to S. Jerome in his preface to S. Matthew. "Last was John, the Apostle and Evangelist, whom Jesus loved the best, who lay on the Lord's bosom, and drank of the purest streams of His doctrines. When he was in Asia, at a time when the seeds of the heresies of Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, those whom in his Epistle he calls Antichrists, and whom the Apostle Paul frequently refutes, he was constrained by well nigh all the bishops who were at that time in Asia, and by the deputies of many other Churches, to write of the deep things of the Divinity of our Saviour, and to 'break through,'^* as it were, to the Word of God by a kind of happy temerity. Whence also we are told in ecclesiastical history that when he was urged by the brethren to write, he agreed to do so, on condition that they should all fast, and pray to God in common. When the fast was ended, being filled with the power of revelation, he burst forth with the preface coming straight from above, In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. "

Others add that S. John's beginning to write was preceded by lightnings and thunderings, as though he had been another Moses, who thus received the Law of God (Exod. xix.)

Baronius shows that S. John wrote his Gospel in the year of Christ 99, or sixty-six years after the Ascension. This was the first year of the reign of Nerva, and the twenty-seventh after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

As then Isaiah surpassed all the rest of the Prophets in sublimity, so did John the other Evangelists. Last in time, he is first in dignity and perfection. Thus in the first chapter of Ezekiel he is compared to an eagle flying above all other birds. Thus his dignity and special excellence, as well as his consequent obscurity, may be considered under three heads.

First, his matter and scope.  S. John alone of set purpose treats of the Divinity of Christ, of the origin, eternity, and generation of the Word, of the spiration of the Holy Spirit, of the unity of the Godhead, and of the Divine relations and attributes. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are concerned with the actions of Christ's humanity. This is why the Fathers derive almost all their arguments against the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians and such like heretics from S. John.

The second is the order of time. We know that the Church, like the dawning of the day, advanced by the succession of time to the perfect day of the knowledge of the mysteries of the faith. Thus the sacred writers of the New Testament, the Apostles and Evangelists, write far more clearly concerning them than do Moses and the Prophets of the Old Testament. John was the last of all, and his Gospel was his last work. He composed it therefore as a sort of crown of all the sacred books.

The third is the author.  S. John alone was counted worthy to win the laurels of all saints. For he is in very deed a theologian, or rather the prince of theologians. The same is an apostle, a prophet and an evangelist. The same is a priest, a bishop, a high priest, a virgin, and a martyr. That S. John always remained a virgin is asserted by all the ancient writers, expressly by Tertullian ( Lib. de monogam .) and S. Jerome ( Lib. 1 contra. Jovin .). To him therefore as a virgin Christ from His cross commended His Virgin Mother. For "blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God," as the Truth Itself declares.

The Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, made known to this His most chaste and beloved friend, who reclined upon His breast, the hidden things and sacraments of the Divinity, which had been kept-secret from the foundation of the world. John hath declared the same to us, as a son of thunder, thundering and lightening the whole world with the Deity of the Word. As with a flaming thunderbolt "he hath given shine to the world;" and with the fire of love he hath inflamed it. Let that speech of Christ, His longest and His last, bear witness, which He made after supper (S. John xiii. &c.), which breathes of nothing but the ardour of Divine love.

See more to the same effect in S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostom ( Præm. in Joan .). Indeed, S. Chrysostom dares to say that S. John in his Gospel hath taught the angels the secrets of the Incarnate Word, such as before they knew not, and that therefore he is the Doctor of the cherubim and the seraphim. He proves this from the passage of S. Paul in Ephesians iii., "that there might be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places by the Church the multiform wisdom of God." "If," he says, "the principalities and powers, the cherubim and seraphim, have learned these things through the Church, it is very evident that the angels listen to him with the deepest attention. Not slight therefore is the honour which we gain in that the angels are our fellow-disciples in the things that they knew not.

CANONS THROWING LIGHT

upon the

INTERPRETATION OF S. JOHN'S GOSPEL.

——o——

JOHN has a style peculiar to himself, entirely different from that of the other Evangelists and sacred writers. For as an eagle at one time he raises himself above all, at another time he stoops down to the earth, as it were for his prey, that with the rusticity of his style he may capture the simple. At one time he is as wise as the cherubim, at another time he burns as do the seraphim. The reason is because John was most like Christ, and most dear to Him; and he in turn loved Christ supremely. Therefore at His Last Supper he reclined upon His breast. From this source, therefore, he sucked in, as it were, the mind, the wisdom, and the burning love of Christ. Wherefore, when thou readest and hearest John, think that thou readest and hearest Christ. For Christ hath transfused His own spirit and His own love into S. John.

2. Although John by the consent of all wrote his Gospel in Greek for Greeks, yet because he himself was a Hebrew, and from love of this primeval language, which was his native tongue, he abounds above the rest in Hebrew phrases and idioms. Hence to understand him we require a knowledge of two, or indeed of three languages—Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Thus he Hebraizes in his frequent use of and for like as ( sicut ) as Solomon does in Proverbs, where he compares like with like by means of the conjunction and .   And in such instances is a mark of similitude, and has the same meaning as like as ( sicut ). On the other hand, he Grecizes in his use of perchance ( forsitan ) for surely . In John viii. 19 the Greek particle άν expresses affirmation, not uncertainty. So also in viii. 43 ού δύνασθε, ye are not able, is put for ye are not willing. He likewise constantly duplicates the Hebrew Amen , when the other Evangelists only express it once. The reasons for this diversity are examined in chap. iii. 2.

3. John abounds more in the discourses and disputations of Christ with the Jews than in the things that were done by Him. Not that he relates all the discourses and disputations of Christ, but such as were of greater importance. Especially he gives a compendious account of those in which Christ proved that He was God as well as man.

4. In S. John Christ speaks sometimes as God, and sometimes as man. There is need therefore of a careful examination of contexts to distinguish one from the other.

5. When Christ says, as He often does in S. John, that He "does, or says nothing of Himself," or that "not He, but the Father, does, or says this, or that" there must be understood "originally" and "alone." As thus, "neither alone, nor as man perform I these things: nor yet as God am I the first originator of them; but it is God the Father, who together with His Divine essence communicates to Me omniscience and omnipotence, even the power of doing all things."

6. Although the Apostles and other saints wrought miracles, yet Christ in S. John's Gospel often proves that He is the Messiah and God by the miracles which were done by Him. This proof is a true and effectual one; first, because He Himself made direct use of it. For a miracle as the work of God, and the Voice of the prime Verity, is an infallible proof of that which it is brought forward to confirm. Second, because Christ wrought them by His own power and authority, which He could not have done unless He had been God of God. Thus then He did them that they might appear to proceed from Him as from God, the original source of miracles. For the saints do not work miracles by their own authority, but by the invocation of the name of God, or Christ. Let us add that the miracles which were done by Christ were foretold by Isaiah and the other prophets, that they might be indices and marks of the Messiah, as will appear in chap. xi. 4.

7. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record for the most part the acts of the last year, and the last but one of Christ's ministry, that is to say, what He did after the imprisonment of S. John the Baptist. But S. John's Gospel for the most part gives an account of the two preceding years. This consideration will solve many seeming discrepancies between S. John and the other Evangelists. So S. Augustine in his preface.

8. There is frequently in S. John both great force as well as obscurity in the adverbs and conjunctions of causation, influence, connection, and so on, in such a manner that a single particle will often include and point out the entire meaning of a passage. Hence these particles must be most carefully examined and weighed, as I shall show in each place.

9. The particles that , wherefore , on account of which , and the like do not always signify the cause, or the end intended, but often only a consequence or result. This is especially the case if an event has been certainly foreseen, and therefore could not happen otherwise. This is plain from chap. xii. 38, 39, where it said, They believed not on Him , that the saying of Isaias might be fulfilled : and shortly afterwards, Wherefore they could not believe , because Isaias said again , He hath blinded their eyes. For the reason why the Jews would not believe in Christ was not the prediction of Isaiah foretelling that they would not believe ( non credituros ), but the hardness of heart and malice of the Jews, which as a sort of objective cause preceded Isaiah's prophecy. For Isaiah foretold that the Jews were not about to believe, because in truth they themselves through their own malice and obstinacy were not going to do so. So S. Chryostom and others.

10. By the Jews S. John sometimes means the rulers only, sometimes the people only. Thus he represents the Jews at one time as opposing, at another time as favouring Christ. For the people were His friends, the rulers were His adversaries.

11. By a He braism the present tense often signifies not an action issuing in a result, but a force, or power of nature, or the act (in the sense of will or intention, Trans .) of the agent, even in cases where the effect is opposed by the subject, or in some other way. Thus in i. 9 it is said that Christ by His advent gave light to the world. That means, so far as He was concerned. For many, like the Jews, refused to receive this light, as he immediately adds, and continued in the darkness of their unbelief.

12. The particles as if , so as , and the like, because they correspond to the Hebrew caph , do not always signify likeness, but the truth of a fact, or assertion. Thus in i. 14, we have seen His glory , as of the Only Begotten , means, "we have seen the glory of the Only Begotten to be truly such, and so great as became Him who was indeed the Only Begotten Son of God the Father." So S. Chrysostom and others.

13. John, following the Hebrew idiom, sometimes takes words of inceptive action to signify the beginning of something that is done; but sometimes to signify continuation, that a work is in progress; and sometimes, that a work has been perfected and accomplished. Thus we must not be surprised, if sometimes that which increases, or is being perfected, is spoken of as if it were just commencing, and vice versa. An example of inceptive action is to be found in xvi. 6, where Peter, resisting Christ desiring to wash his feet, says, Lord , dost Thou wash my feet ? Dost Thou wash ? that is, "Dost Thou wish, prepare, begin to wash?" There is an example of continued action in ii. 11 , where, after the miracle of the conversion of water into wine, it is added, And His disciples believed in Him : that is, they went on believing, they increased, and were confirmed in faith. For they had already before this believed in Christ, for if they had not believed in Him, they would not have followed Him as His disciples. There is an example of a perfected action in xi 15, where Christ, when about, at the close of His life, to raise up Lazarus, said, I am glad for your sakes , that ye may believe. That is, " that by means of this My last and greatest miracle ye may be altogether made perfect in your belief in Me." Again, in xx. 17, Jesus appearing after His resurrection to Mary Magdalene, who had fallen at His feet, said, Touch Me not . That is, "Do not delay, and waste time in touching My feet, but go quickly, and tell the Apostles, who are very sorrowful because of My death, that I have risen again."

14. John, after the Hebrew idiom, asserts and confirms over again what he had already asserted, by a denial of the contrary. This is especially the case when the subject matter is of importance, and is doubted about by many, so that it requires strong confirmation. Thus in i. 20 , when John the Baptist is asked by the Jews if he were the Christ, he confessed , and denied not , but confessed , I am not the Christ. And in i. 3, All things were made by Him , and without Him was not anything made that was made.

15. John delights in calling Christ the Life , and the Light , for reasons which I will give hereafter. He has several other similar and peculiar expressions. For instance, he often uses the word judgment for condemnation which takes place in judgement. In other places he uses judgment for the secret judgments and decrees of God, because they are just. Sins he calls darkness. The saints he calls sons of light. That which is true and just he calls the truth. In vi. 27, for procure food , or labour for food he has ε̉ζγάεσθα βζω̃σιν. In the 9th chap., when Jesus is asked by the Jews, Who art Thou? He answers, The Beginning, who also am speaking unto you.

16. John relates that Christ said previously certain things, the when and the where of His saying which He had not previously mentioned. For studying brevity, he considered it sufficient to relate them once. Thus in the 11th chap. he says that Martha said to her sister Mary, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. Yet he had not previously related that Christ bade Martha to call Magdalene; for his mentioning that Martha, by Christ's command, called her sister was sufficient to show that Christ had so commanded. In the same chapter Christ saith to Martha, Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou wouldest see the glory of God? Yet there is no previous account of Christ saying this. Also in vi. 36, Christ says, But I said unto you, that ye also have seen Me and believe not. Yet we nowhere recall that Christ previously so said.

17. The miracles of Christ which John alone records are as follows:- The conversion of water into wine, chap. ii. The first expulsion of the sellers from the Temple, in the same chapter. The healing of the sick child of the nobleman, iv. 47. The healing of the paralytic at the pool in the sheep-market, chap. v. Giving sight to the man born blind, chap. ix. Raising Lazarus from the dead, chap. xi. The falling of Judas and the servants to the earth, when they came to take Jesus, xviii. 6. The flow of blood and water from the side of Christ after He was dead, xix. 34. The multiplication of the fishes, xxi. 6.

COMMENTATORS

Very many persons have written commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, and among them the principal Greek and Latin Fathers. Among the Greeks, after Origen, who composed thirty-two tomes, or books, upon this Gospel, were S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who has written a learned and very excellent commentary. He has written a didactic work, and is especially able and skilful in expounding the literal sense.  S. Cyril's commentary on S. John's Gospel consisted originally of twelve books. But of these the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth have perished. Their loss has been supplied, by Clictovæus, a doctor of Paris, whose work has been mistaken by many learned men for the original of S. Cyril.

A second commentator is S. Chrysostom, who seems to have been imbued with the very spirit of S. John himself. He wrote eighty seven homilies on this Gospel.

A third is Theophylact, and a fourth Euthymius. They, as is usual with them, follow S. Chrysostom. Theophylact is the more diffuse of the two.

A fifth commentator is Nonnus Panopolitanus, an Egyptian, and a very eloquent writer, who, as Suidas says, explained the virgin theologian, that is, John the Evangelist, in heroic verses. Although the commentary of Nonnus can properly only be called a paraphrase, nevertheless in many places he points out and illustrates the meaning of the Evangelist in pithy sentences.

Among the Latins the first and chief commentator is S. Augustine, who has written systematically upon the whole Gospel in one hundred and twenty-four tractates.

The second is Venerable Bede, who follows S. Augustine passim, and often word for word.

A third commentary is what is called the Gloss. Where observe that the Gloss is tripartite. The first is the Interlinear Gloss, so called because written between the lines of the sacred text. For that reason it is brief, but pithy, and treats many things in the Gospel learnedly and usefully. The second is the Marginal Gloss, because written on the margin of the text. To this is subjoined the Gloss of Nicolas Lyra. This Nicolas was called Lyra from a village in Normandy. He was a Jew by birth, and was converted to Christianity. He entered the Franciscan Order, and taught scholastic theology, A.D. 1320. He was a learned man, and skilled in Hebrew. He wrote his Gloss upon S. John and the other sacred writers, expounding them literally, and became so celebrated that it has passed into a proverb—

"If Lyra's hand had erst not swept his lyre,

  Our theologians had not danced in choir."

However, we must keep this in mind, that he is too credulous with regard to Jewish fables and puerilities, giving too much heed to writers of his own nation, to the Rabbin, and especially to R. Salomon, who is a great retailer of fables.

In later ages, and especially in our own day, many commentaries have been written upon this Gospel. Pre-eminent among them are Maldonatus, of the Society of Jesus, who is copious, acute, elegant, and learned: Cornelius Jansen, who is exact, solid, and to be depended upon: Frank Toletus, who displays a sound judgment, especially in the application of metaphors and similitudes. Sebastian Barradi has written a good literal commentary, mingling with it moral reflections. He is useful to preachers in affording materials for sermons, and showing how to treat them. Frank Ribera is brief, but as usual excellent and learned. Frank Lucas is entirely literal, but he uses the letter to draw the reader to pious affections.

Among the heretics, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Musculus, Bullinger, Brentius, Calvin, and Beza have written upon S. John's Gospel. Of all these authors Augustinus Marloratus has made a catena, which I read through and refuted when I was in Belgium.

^* (Cf. Exod. xix. 21, Trans.) Return to the place.