John 10:22

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)

it was . . . the feast of the dedication--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).

it was winter--implying some inclemency. Therefore,

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

22. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication] More literally, Now there took place at Jerusalem the Feast of the Dedication. This feast might be celebrated anywhere, and the pointed insertion of ‘at Jerusalem’ seems to suggest that in the interval between Joh_10:21 and Joh_10:22 Christ had been away from the city. It was kept in honour of the purification and restoration of the Temple (b. c. 164) after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes; 1Ma_1:20-60; 1Ma_4:36-59 (note esp. 1Ma_4:36 and 1Ma_4:59); 2Ma_10:1-8. Another name for it was ‘the Lights,’ or ‘Feast of Lights,’ from the illuminations with which it was celebrated. Christian dedication festivals are its lineal descendants.

“The feast was of comparatively recent institution.… It is not a feast the name of which would be likely to occur to any but a Jew; still less the accurate note of place in Joh_10:23 (‘in the temple in Solomon’s porch’). Both these verses proclaim the eye-witness. So does the admirable question in the verse following. Attracted by His teachings and His miracles, but repelled by His persistent refusal to assume the Messianic character as they understood it, the Jews ask Jesus directly, ‘How long, &c.’ It is such a question as at this period of the ministry was inevitable, and the language in which it is expressed exactly represents the real difficulties and hesitation that the Jews would feel” S. pp. 174, 175.

and it was winter] Omit ‘and,’ which is wanting in authority, and join ‘it was winter’ to the next verse. The words explain why Jesus was walking under cover.

22–38. The Discourse at the Feast of the Dedication

Again we seem to have a gap in the narrative. Between Joh_10:21-22 (but see below) there is an interval of about two months; for the Feast of Tabernacles would be about the middle of October, and that of the Dedication towards the end of December. In this interval some would place Luk_10:1 to Luk_13:21. If this be Correct, we may connect the sending out of the Seventy both with the Feast of Tabernacles and also with Joh_10:16. Seventy was the traditional number of the nations of the earth; and for the nations 70 bullocks were offered at the Feast of Tabernacles—13 on the first day, 12 on the second, 11 on the third, and so on. The Seventy were sent out to gather in the nations; for they were not forbidden, as the Twelve were, to go into the way of the Gentiles or to enter any city of the Samaritans (Mat_10:5). The Twelve were primarily for the twelve tribes; the Seventy for the Gentiles. The words ‘other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must lead,’ must have been spoken just before the mission of the Seventy.

Dr Westcott, on the strength of a strongly attested reading in Joh_10:22, Then there took place the Feast of the Dedication, would connect chap. 9 and Joh_10:1-21 with this later feast rather than with the Feast of Tabernacles. In this case the interval of two months must be placed between chaps. 8 and 9.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_10:22-23

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of Dedication

The origin and character of the feast of Dedication

Antiochus Epiphanes, on his return from the conquest of Egypt, having entered Jerusalem with very great slaughter, and having pillaged the city, proceeded to pollute the sanctuary, placing on the altar of God the abomination of desolation; offering swines flesh; burning the books of the law; and putting to death those who ventured to keep that sacred volume in their possession.

This was, no doubt, a time of great mourning to the godly in Judah; and with many prayers and tears would they sigh for deliverance. And as under the oppression of Pharaoh, so under that of Antiochus, the Lord looked upon the affliction of His people and sent them a deliverer. Judas was raised up, a warrior who is said to have taken for the motto of his standard, Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Jehovah! the first letters of which words in Hebrew when put together made up the word Maccabi, whence it is supposed his surname of Maccabaeus was derived. (J. Fawcett, M. A.)

Three decisive victories in the first two years (B.C. 166, 167) of the campaign at Samaria, Bethoron and Emmaus, secured Judas fame and success; and, finally, an encounter at Bethzur made him master of Jerusalem. They entered and found a scene of havoc. The corridors of the priests chambers which encircled the Temple were torn down; the gates were in ashes, the altar disfigured, and the whole platform was overgrown as if with a mountain jungle or forest glade (1Ma_4:33). 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 joyous, occasions. Then, whilst the Greek garrison still remained in the fortress, the warriors first began the elaborate process of cleansing the polluted place. The first object was to clear away every particle which had been touched by the unclean animals. On the 22nd of Marchesvan they removed the portable altar which had been erected. On the 3rd of Chisleu they removed the smaller altars from the court in front of the Temple and the various Pagan statues (2Ma_10:2-3). With the utmost care they pulled down the great platform of the altar itself, from the dread lest its stones should have been polluted. But with the scrupulosity which marked the period, they considered that stones once consecrated could never be entirely desecrated, and accordingly hid them away in a corner of the Temple, there to remain till the Prophet (Macc. 4:46)--the solver of riddles--should come and tell what was to be done with them. How many stones of spiritual or intellectual edifices excite a like perplexed fear, lest they have been so misused that they cannot be employed again--at least, till some prophet comes to tell us how and when! For the interior of the Temple everything had to be refurnished afresh--vessels, candlesticks, incense, altar, tables, curtains. At last all was completed, and on the 25th of Chisleu, the same day that three years before the profanation had occurred, the Temple was rededicated. It was the very time predicted in the book of Daniel (Dan_7:25; Dan_9:24-27; Dan_12:6-7). The three years and a half from the time of the first beginning of the sacrilege was over, and the rebound of the national sentiment was in proportion. The depth of winter (December) could not restrain the burst of joy. From the first dawn of that day for the whole following week songs of joy were sung with cymbals and harps. In the Psalms of Solomon (11:2, 3, 7) there are exalting strains which echo the words of the Evangelical prophet, and welcome the return unto Jerusalem. The smoke once more went up from the altar; the gates, and even the priestly chambers, were fumigated. The building itself was studded with golden crowns and shields, in imitation of the golden shields which in the first Temple had adorned the porch. 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; but this sufficed. It was a solemn moment when the sacred fire was again kindled on the new altar; and from it the flame communicated to the rest of the building. As in the modern ceremony of the Sacred Fire in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, so this incident was wrapped in mystery and legend. The simple historical account is that they procured the light by striking the fresh unpolluted stones against each other. But later representations, going back to the like events in Nehemiahs life, imagined some preternatural origin of the fire itself. It was further supposed that one unpolluted crevice was found which furnished the oil for the lighting of the Temple during the whole week; in remembrance of which every private house was illuminated, beginning, according to one usage, with eight candles, and decreasing as the week went on; according to the other, beginning with one and advancing to eight. Partly, no doubt, from these traditions, or (as Josephus thinks) from the returning joy of the nation, the festival in after days bore the name of the Feast of Lights. This would receive a yet fuller significance in connection with another aspect of this great day. Though the latest it took rank at once with the earlier holy days. It won for itself a sanctity which neither the dedication of Solomon nor Zerubbabel had acquired. Both of these consecrations had been arranged to coincide with the Feast of Tabernacles. That season had already passed whilst the patriots were hiding in the mountains. Now, however, it was determined to make this new solemnity a repetition of that feast. It was called afterwards The Tabernacle Feast of Winter; and on this, its first occasion, there were blended with it the usual processions of that gay autumnal holiday, brandishing their woven branches of palm and other trees, whose evergreen foliage cheered the dull aspect of a Syrian December. And we can hardly doubt that they would, in accordance with the name Feast of Lights, add to it that further characteristic of Tabernacles--the illumination of the precincts of the Temple by two great chandeliers placed in the court, by the light of which festive dances were kept up all through the night. There was an additional propriety in the transference of the national festival of the vintage to this new feast, because it coincided with the natural solemnity of welcoming the first light kindled in the new year. December 25th was at Tyre, as at Rome in after times, celebrated as the birthday of the Sun--the revival, the renewal, the Encaenia of man and nature. (Dean Stanley.)

The lawfulness of national and ecclesiastical festivals

There was nothing in this institution against which the most correctly informed conscience could object, and it was enjoined by the lawful authorities; Jesus therefore would submit to an ordinance of man for the Lords sake; and not only so, but He would willingly encourage this feast of dedication as a solemn acknowledgment of Divine mercies. On exactly the same footing stand several of the observances of our Church. The fifth of November, for instance, is observed as a memorial of a like deliverance from the machinations of those, who, after the example of Antiochus, would burn the Scriptures, and those who were found to possess them; and even our Christmas, and Lent, and Good Friday, and Easter, and Whitsuntide, rest on the same foundation. They were appointed by man, and are supported by the authority of the Church; a higher authority they do not claim: but who that feels as a Protestant and as a Christian, and regards the example of Christ, would refuse to comply with them? (J. Fawcett, M. A.)

It was winter

Winter

Consider it in relation

I. TO GOD.

1. As a display of Divine power (Job_33:22-30). God humbles thewildest elements of nature by His northern blast. It not only arrests the mountain stream, but congeals into mountains of ice the polar seas; not only withers the flowers, but strips the forest; not only binds up the vegetable powers, but chains the solar heat. Who can stand before His cold? No one, but for the safeguards provided by the God of winter. And if such securities be so valuable, how invaluable the robe of righteousness for the naked and destitute soul!

2. As a display of Divine wisdom and goodness. Frosts purify the air, destroy noxious vermin, etc.; and if it occasion some disorders it prevents many others; and even these disorders by confining us at home, induce reflection.

3. As a display of Divine faithfulness. The fulfilment of the promise to Noah requires the annual preparation of the soil for fertility, and the preservation of seed from destruction. The first is secured by the action of frost, the latter by snow, which affords a warm garment, and cherishes infant growth. Then, touched by the sun, the vesture melts and saturates the pores of the soil with the dissolving nitre, thus replenishing the earth with the principles of vegetable life. Were there only snow the soil would be too damp; were there only frost the seed would perish. So God blends both together.

II. TO MANKIND AT LARGE. It reminds us

1. Of the condition of the poor. We must not excuse ourselves from benevolence because we have paid the Poor Rate. We are compelled by law to do that; but how dwelleth the love of God in him who, having this worlds goods, does nothing but pay his legal dues.

2. Of the reverses of lot to which we are all liable. Often affairs that were once as promising as spring, bright as summer, and rich as autumn, are now desolate as winter. It is not necessary to forget prosperity in adversity. To so remember it as to beget impatience is foolish and sinful, but not if it deepens our convictions of the uncertainty of human affairs, and warns others against trusting in uncertain riches. And then, again, how often is adversity the season when we first began to think seriously.

3. Of the evening and end of life. As winter comes freezing the streams, and weakening the powers of vegetable life, so old age congeals the warm blood and impairs the mental faculties. And yet this is the season to which the souls weightiest concerns are often left. Old age is not the time for business effort, much less, then, for spiritual.

III. TO THE SPIRITUAL WORLD. Winter should remind us

1. Of the entrance of sin into the world. For as winter deforms the face of nature, so sin brought a curse upon the earth. Sin quenched light, froze love, destroyed holiness.

2. Of the natural state of the heart in the sight of God. The heart and life of every man ought to be as spring: rich in buds of holiness; as summer, rich in the bloom of holiness; as autumn, rich in the ripe fruit of holiness. But, alas! it is not so. It is winter in every heart withheld from the Sun of Righteousness. And every year of neglect hardens the heart further against God.

3. Of the unhappy state of the backslider; its desolation and despair contrasted with its former fruitfulness and hope.

4. Of the great salvation. God has made the whiteness of winters snow an emblem

(1) Of the purity of salvation, Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

(2) Of pardon and sanctification, Come, now, let us reason together, etc. (R. Philip, D. D.)

Winter as an emblem

I. OF THE STATE OF THE UNCONVERTED.

1. In winter the light of heaven is obscured. Even in our temperate zone, our day is brief; but in the far north for months the orb of day never appears above the horizon. So the unconverted see not the Sun of Righteousness, nor the light He sheds on things important and interesting. They sit in darkness and the shadow of death.

2. The deadness and barrenness of winter is figured in the unregenerate state. There is no foliage, corn, fruit, but what may be forced by artificial heat, and wanting in natural flavour. So in spiritual husbandry: the unconverted bear no fruit of approved quality of the Spirit.

3. The cold of winter typifies the state of those who are strangers to the genial glow of pure and spiritual affection. Their tenderest feelings in religion are but a partial thaw produced by a transient sunshine which leaves no memorial behind except the pendant icicle and slippery surface, hardening the more for the momentary softening.

4. The winds and storms of winter are apt emblems of those ill-regulated and malignant passions which agitate with ceaseless tempest the souls that have no rest in God.

II. OF THE STATE OF SPIRITUAL DECLENSION. When summer and autumn have gone a change is soon perceptible. Where the golden light, luxurious warmth, precious produce? Nothing remains but cold barrenness. Emblematic of those who started well but have fallen out. Sometimes this change is gradual, as the days gradually shorten; sometimes more rapid through the influence of temptation, as when winter is hastened on by a premature and unexpected storm. But to remain in that state is to die.

III. OF A STATE OF DESERTION AND TEMPTATION. In winter nature seems barren of charm, and so the soul when Christ has withdrawn. Such an act is usually the result of mans negligence; but sometimes it is for the trial of faith and patience. Thus it was with Job, our Lord, Paul, and all great saints.

IV. OF A STATE OF AFFLICTION. In the case of the poor, winter is much more than an emblem, and that is the time to show our true religion, which is to visit the widow and fatherless in their affliction. How many are exposed on the stormy sea or amid the drifted snow! Let us then be thankful for our security. But there are sorrows that create winter in the soul. Conclusion: Winter precedes spring in nature, and may do also for the unconverted, the backslide, the troubled, etc. (H. Grey, D. D.)

The moral uses of winter

We have one whole season that bears a look of unbenignity; but while many of Gods doings do not represent His disposition, they exhibit His modes and ends of discipline. Turning our thoughts in this direction we shall find enough in winter to satisfy us of Gods benignity. Some have thought that God would have shown His goodness more perfectly if He had omitted winter altogether. But would the advantages of a cylindrical world be greater than a spherical one in spite of its winter? In winter

I. WE SEE THAT GODS BENEFICENCE IS NOT ALWAYS CONCERNED IN THE PROMOTION OF PHYSICAL ENDS. He here takes us off into a field to show on how large a scale He builds and governs, and works for ends that are superior. Our God is not a summer God, but a winter God, caring visibly less for all mere comfort than for the grand prerogatives and rigours of principles.

II. WE NOTE A MARKED CHANGE IN OUR BODILY AND MENTAL HABIT AND TEMPERAMENT.

1. Diseases are of a different type, and health itself a different experience. In summer the senses are more awake, and the body has free communication with nature through every pore. In winter these gates are closed; the vital force retreats to sustain the internal heat by extra exertion then. We fold our cloak instinctively about us, and ask to be separated from nature by impervious walls.

2. This change naturally effects the tone and temperament of the mind which is less given up to sensation and passion. In the perpetual summer of the tropics the souls capacities are all but macerated; but where there is a good interspersing of winter habit, a more rugged and distinctly moral temperament is induced.

(1) The contrast between summer and winter life in respect to reflection is remarkable. After the mind has received the summer into its storehouse then it wants winter to review its stores. Now the senses lose their objects, we listen to conscience and think of other worlds. Every prospect without is forbidding, the indoor fire more attractive, and if we ever think cogently we do now.

(2) It is well understood that the mind never attains to strength without the habit of reflection. The same is necessary to a vigorous pronouncement of the moral man. Hence the intellectual and moral dearth of the tropics, Their moral nature wants the frigorific tension of a well-nurtured life and experience. Who would undertake to form a Scotch people as to a sense of principles in Jamaica?

III. We are made MORE CONSCIOUS OF OUR MORAL WANTS. The prodigal came to himself in a time of short allowance; and when, as in winter, shall our want of God be awakened? Everything around is an image of the coldness of a cold heart. Cut off from the diversions of summer pleasures, then, if ever, a man will feel those wants which set all moral natures reaching after God.

IV. We are MORE CAPABLE OF REALIZING INVISIBLE SCENERIES AND WORLDS. God is more vividly imagined in summer, and the tropical attractions of paradise, with its twelve manner of fruits, are intimated. But the time for realizing these invisible things is when a pall is thrown over their visible resemblances. When creation is bare we call upon our imaginations to paint and picture, and make it blessed above all seen facts.

V. THE WILL BECOMES MORE ERECT AND DETERMINATE. Men in the tropics seem to have no will, and are commonly inefficient for decisive action. How many of them have become martyrs? And who is not languid and averse to resolution even in our northern summer? We speak of the bracing of winter, by which we mean that we have a nerve to do, determine, endure, i.e., have a new instalment of will, and so of practical energy.

VI. THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF LIFE ARE AFFECTED BENEFICIALLY. Winter is not commonly productive, but is rather a time of expenditure; and in this way it impels by the most stringent motive to habits of industry and providence. And these habits help to set one on forecasting the wants and necessities of the life beyond. And then, having this also provided, he will have it in his heart to borrow the larger lesson, and be no more churlish or barren of gratitude; but, seeing that God gives for expenditure, he will set his comforts in contrast with the desolations around, and thank God for the supplies of the year. VII. We see THE CONTRIBUTIONS IT MAKES TO HOME LIFE. Home is an exclusively northern word. Tropical families living out of doors for the whole year are less regularly gathered into domestic proximity. It is only at the hearth when the winter fire is kindled that fatherhood, motherhood, and other tender relationships become bonds of unity. A whole half-year spent at the hearth--mornings there begun with prayer, long evenings enlivened by mutualsociety, books opening their treasures, and games their diversions--this condenses a home. Who can imagine a Cottars Saturday Night in the tropics?

VIII. WE HAVE BEEN TRACING PARTICULAR RESULTS OF CHARACTER OPERATED BY WINTER CLIMATES. LET US LOOK AT A FEW WINTER SCENES AND OCCASIONS THAT ARE WORKING RESULTS NOT LESS IMPORTANT. Note

1. The almost religious impression of winter storms. Tropical storms are so terrible as to leave no moral impression at all. But our winter storm gathers up its force more thoughtfully, as if moving only great instigations, and under this performance, by Gods aerial orchestra, our soul is in vibration as never under any combination of act, instrument, or voice.

2. The moral value of winter as a time for charity. In the summer God pours out His bounty so freely that none scarcely miss their needed supply.

In the winter He withholds that we may take His place. The conditions of hunger and cold authenticate themselves. If there is no fire the lack can be seen. The poor ragged child, saying by his piteous look, Who can stand before His cold? wants no certificate.

3. Winter funerals. These are a trial that awakens strange inward commotions. Our heart shudders, but while our feeling is protesting, the thought arises Our departed is not in that hole. Let the snows fall heavy--we thank Thee Father Lord of the warmer clime that our dead one liveswith Thee. Practically, almost nothing will compel a faith in immortality more than to bury a friend in the winter.

4. Winter religious movements. It is remarkable, and a fair subject for congratulation, that the great Church days are in winter or early spring--Christmas and Easter, e.g. Whether Lent is fixed because at that time the mind is more congenially tempered for the higher meditation and severer exercises of religion some may question, but Lent in July would have much less chance of the intended benefit; and in churches not observing Lent, the time is distinguished by what are called revivals of religion. But in both cases winter becomes the harvest of religion. The tonic force of winter gives a possibility of thought and tension specially needed for earnest religious exercises. It is also an advantage that we love proximity in winter, and covet more easily the warmth of assemblies and high social impulse.

5. Winter seems the time to meditate all our most serious concerns of life anew. Doing this it will not much concern us if our flight should be in winter. (H. Bushnell, D. D.)

The beauties of winter

When the sky is blue above, and the morning air fresh and bracing, and the frost has gemmed every twig and spray of bush and tree, and every weed and blade of grass by the roadside--aye, and every stone and dead leaf, and straw even, and natures myriad brilliants glitter like diamonds in the sun; and the hard ground rings under your quick tread; and the boys shout on the slippery pond; and the skater hurries to the lake in the park; and the woodmans axe is heard in the copse; and in the barn the flail comes down with a will; and the carters boy whistles beside the smoking team; and the brown leaves of the oak rustle; and the lark sings overhead--then winter is a brave old boy, and shall have a crown of shining holly with scarlet berries on the dark leaves of glossy green; and the log shall burn on the hearth, and the mistletoe hang in the hall, and the young shall be merry, and the old cheerful, and the thoughtful remember gladly who it is that hath made the winter. (H. H. Dobney.)

Temple views of winter

National humiliation and rejoicing may at times be proper, but if annually perpetuated they may become unmeaning. In addition to fasts and festivals of Divine appointment, the Jews had this and others. With how much more reverence men treat Church institutions than those sanctioned by God. Christianity is contrasted with Judaism in as much as it is not an outward religion, has no feasts, attaches no sanctity to days and years, but is inward.

2. At this feast Jesus walked in Solomans porch, and men sought to stone Him for asserting His Oneness with the Father. Men may attach greater importance to the sanctuary than to the gospel. What was passing through His mind? The contrast between the outward beauty of the Temple and the real condition of the Church? Or the little moral influence it had in the world? For the worlds winter was only the symbol of its spiritual state.

3. What does the season suggest to us in the sanctuary? The ritualism of nature is most expressive, and furnishes us with types of spiritual ideas. Christ uses natures illustrations exclusively.

I. DEATH PRECEDES LIFE. Our year begins with winter, which prepares the way for all that follows. Winter is the type of death. It paralyzes old age, takes the colouring from childhood, and fills many a grave.

1. If mental life is to be developed how much have we to die to--early prejudices, mistaken opinions, confused conjectures.

2. If the spiritual life is to be developed, death must precede it. Old principles must be renounced, old habits abandoned.

(1) There must be death to sin that there may be life to God. Crucifixion with Christ precedes Christ living in us.

(2) There must be death to things seen if we would live to the things unseen. The world must be dead to us if we would seek the things above.

(3) The body must die that it may live a new life.

II. LIFE HAS ITS SUCCESSIVE DEVELOPMENTS.

1. Winter is necessary that one form of life may pass away to be succeeded by another.

(1) It is not all spring. Earths beautiful garments become worn and soiled, and must be laid aside, and in darkness and silence nature makes preparation for her new vesture.

(2) It is not all activity and growth. There must be a time for the gathering up of energies.

(3) It is not all fruitfulness; the fruits must be gathered in to answer the purposes of their growth, and the developments must begin anew.

2. The length of the year is adapted to the constitution of the world. If any change were to take place the wonderful mechanism would be disarranged and come to a stand, and so in the constitution of man. We get robustness not in summer but in winter, and grow more spiritually then.

3. These successive developments, though almost numberless in their forms, may be repetitions. Every year sees leaves, flowers, etc., like the last. But some forms may be succeeded by new manifestations of life, increase of beauty and fruitfulness. There is not a leaf that falls but has accomplished its purpose and makes way for its successor. And so some successive manifestations of spiritual life seem copies of each other. These are necessary to Christian character, but they would not go on did not winter intervene, and some are replaced by manifestations far surpassing those that have preceded them.

III. LIFE CONTAINS THE GERM OF ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. Winter does not destroy life. The first act of faith contains in it the germ of all the future sinless and sorrowless life. (H. J. Bevis.)

Jesus walked in the Temple In Solomons porch

Solomons porch

The word porch rather means what we should call a verandah or colonnade. It was one of those long covered walks under a roof supported by columns, on one side at least, which the inhabitants of hot countries appear to find absolutely needful. Singularly enough, one sect of heathen philosophers at Athens was called Stoics, from its meeting in a place called Stoa, here rendered a porch; while another was called Peripatetics, from its habit of walking about during its discussions, just as our Lord did in this verse. The cloisters of a cathedral or abbey, perhaps, are most like the building called a porch here. Josephus says this porch was one of the buildings which remained partly undestroyed from Solomons Temple. Tacitus expressly mentions it as one of the defences of the Temple at the siege of Jerusalem. (Bp. Ryle.)

This discourse of our Lord concerning His own Divine power as proved by His works was delivered in winter in Solomons porch. And then the Jews rejected Him (Joh_10:39). But afterwards this porch was the place in which His apostles, having wrought mighty works in His name, boldly proclaimed His Messiahship and Divine power to the people, who gladly accepted the gospel (Act_3:11; Act_5:12). Both in nature and in grace it was then spring. Christ had ascended and the Comforter had come. (Bp. Wordsworth.)

The Lord in our assemblies

1. The presence of Jesus brings into prominence

(1) The place: at Jerusalem, in the Temple.

(2) The exact part of it: Solomons porch.

(3) The time: winter.

(4) The proceedings: feast of Dedication.

2. The main feature in all history, and in the event of every life, is the presence or absence of Jesus.

I. WILL HE BE HERE? The place may be a very Jerusalem, our meetingplace may be a temple, it may be a high day, but will He be with us? It may be cold and wintry; but what of that if He be here? Our own eager inquiry is about His presence, and we feel sure that He will come, feral. We have invited Him, and He will not refuse His friends.

2. We are prepared for Him, and are waiting to welcome Him.

3. We have great need of Him, and He is full of compassion.

4. We have some of His brethren, and these bring Him in them; indeed, He is in them.

5. We have those here whom He is seeking--lost sheep.

6. He has premised to come (Mat_13:20).

7. Some declare that they have already seen Him. Why should not others of us enjoy the same privilege?

II. WILL HE STAY? He will

1. If we prize His company, and feel that we cannot live without it. We must by earnest prayer constrain Him to abide with us (Luk_24:29)

2. If we love His truth, and delight to make it known.

3. If we obey His will, and walk in sincerity and holiness.

4. If we are diligent in His service and worship.

5. If we are united in love to Him, to one another, and to poor sinners.

6. If we are humbly reverent and sit at His feet in lowly confession. The proud He will never favour.

7. If we are jealously watchful.

III. WHAT WILL HE DO IF HE COMES?

1. He will walk among us and observe what we are doing, even as He noticed those who went to the Temple at Jerusalem.

2. He will grieve over the spiritual condition of many, even as He mourned over the ruin of Jerusalem.

3. He will wait to give audience to any who desire to speak with Him.

4. He will teach by His servant; and His Word, whether received or rejected, will be with great authority and power.

5. He will this day explain to us the Temple itself, by being Himself the Key to it. Think of Jesus, who is the Temple of God (Rev_21:22), in the Temple, and then understand by the light of His presence

(1) The Temple (Heb_9:11; Rev_15:5).

(2) The altar (Heb_13:10; Rev_3:3).

(3) The Sacrifice (Heb_9:23; 1Co_5:7).

(4) The shewbread (Heb_9:2).

(5) The veil (Heb_10:20).

(6) The ark and mercy seat (Heb_9:4-5; Rev

10:19).

(7) The priest (Heb_10:12).

6. He will to His own people reveal His love, as once the Lords light shone above the mercy seat.

7. He will take us where He always walks, but where there is no winter: to the New Jerusalem, to the temple, to a more beautiful building than Solomons porch (Rev_21:10-11). (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 10:22-23. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication — Or, as εγενετο δε τα εγκαινια may be rendered, Now the feast of dedication came on at Jerusalem: for it does not appear that the preceding discourses, from Joh 7:14, were delivered at this feast, but at the feast of tabernacles. Dr. Campbell reads, Once, when they were celebrating the feast of dedication, it being winter, as Jesus walked, &c. This festival, which, according to the meaning of the Greek term, might be more properly called the feast of renovation, was instituted by Judas Maccabæus, (1Ma 4:59,) in memory of their pulling down the altar of burnt-offerings, which had been profaned by the Pagans, and building a new one, dedicated to the true God, and of their purifying the temple from the pollutions and idolatries of Antiochus Epiphanes. “This restoration of the worship of God was a very joyful event to every religious Israelite; and being considered as a new dedication of the temple, great regard was paid to the festival instituted in remembrance of it. See Joseph. Antiq., Joh 12:11. Accordingly, though it was of human institution, our Lord did not scruple being present at it. The Jews celebrated this feast for eight days successively, beginning on the 25th of Casleu. But the latter half of that month falling in with the first half of our December, it was winter, and commonly bad weather at this feast. Wherefore, to avoid the inclemency of the season, Jesus walked in Solomon’s portico.” Josephus informs us, that when Solomon built the temple, he filled up a part of the adjacent valley, and built a portico over it toward the east. This was a noble structure, supported by a wall four hundred cubits high; and continued even to the time of Albinus and Agrippa, which was several years after the death of Christ.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 100.—JESUS AT JERUSALEM AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION, Joh_10:22-39.

22. The Feast of Dedication—This was a festival established by Judas Maccabaeus, in honour of the re-dedication of the temple, consequent upon his victory over the persecutor, Antiochus Epiphanes. That tyrant had trampled upon the Jewish religion, burnt the books of the law, established idolatry in the Holy Place, and offered swine’s flesh upon the great altar. The Jewish hero, Judas, conquered him in battle, and re-dedicated the temple on the 25th day of the month Chisleu, answering to our 15th of December. Hence it was winter. This feast, unlike the others, was kept not only at Jerusalem, but throughout the land. It was characterized by the abundance of its illuminations, and hence is called The Feast of Lights.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

Joh_10:22-38. Our Lord’s utterances at the feast of dedication on His oneness with the Father, etc.—This feast (τὰ ἐγκαίνια—the Encænia) was post-exilic in its origin. It commemorated the re-dedication of the temple and the renewing of the altar by Judas Maccabæus after their profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. It was also called τὰ φῶτα, “Lights,” from a later custom of illuminating the city and temple (vide Jos., Ant.; Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, etc.). It lasted eight days, and was accompanied by great festivities (2Ma_10:6-8)—from the 25th Chisleu (December 20th), i.e. about the middle of the Syrian winter or rainy season. It is somewhat uncertain whether we are to understand that our Lord was absent from Jerusalem between the feast of tabernacles, during which the discourse 1–22 was spoken, and this feast. Godet thinks that perhaps during that period we may include the events recorded in Luk_10:1-37.

Joh_10:22-23. It was winter, etc.—Vide above. These are clearly the words of an eye-witness. Solomon’s porch.—Or the portico of Solomon (vide also Act_3:11; Act_5:12). “That which was really Solomon’s work, and which was preserved until that time, and remains even to the present day, is to be found in the substructures under the Aska; the subterranean passage, especially, which led from the city of David into the sanctuary; the corridor with the double gate. This we regard as the portico of Solomon: there Jesus walked in winter; because the cold did not penetrate into this crypt, which must naturally have been a frequented place of resort during the winter season” (Caspari).

Joh_10:24. How long dost Thou keep our minds in a state of suspense (or doubt)?—(αἴρειν τὴν φυχήν, to excite the mind with expectation of hope or fear.) This question shows how wide-spread was the interest among the Jerusalem Jews as to our Lord’s person and mission. The leading Jews were evidently anxious that they and the people should arrive at some definite understanding concerning Christ. “Here the ruling powers of the Jews in Jerusalem seem to be making their last attempt to discover whether from this man, marked as in any case He seemed to be by characteristics of great power, there might not be gained another phase of character and turn of mind than He had hitherto presented. The meaning of the festival might have perhaps especially disposed their minds to do this. For hardly could they celebrate an Encænia without sighing in their secret hearts, and murmuring to one another, Would that a new Judas Maccabæus (Hammerer) would arise and hammer away the Romans.… And as often as they thought on the possibility, even yet, that the mighty Jesus might undertake this part, their bitter distaste to the trend of His character could not fail for the moment to recede into the background.… This was the frame of mind that prompted this question.… It was only under His further explanation in what sense He allowed Himself to be their Christ, that their old exasperation broke out afresh” (Lange, Life of Christ).

Joh_10:25. I told you, etc.—He had done so frequently (Joh_5:19; Joh_8:12; Joh_8:36, etc.), and had shown by His works and symbolical actions what He was (Joh_2:13 seq.). A direct claim merely might be made by any impostor; but Jesus pointed to the proofs which supported the declarations He had already openly made of His divine Sonship.

Joh_10:26. As I said, etc. (καθὼς εἷπον ὑμῖν).—This clause is omitted in the Revised Version. Alford considers “the difficulty of the clause a considerable warrant for its genuineness,” and that it refers “more to the whole allegory than to any explicit saying.” The phrase might also include a reference to Joh_8:37-44.

Joh_10:27-38. Here the subject of discourse of two months previously is again taken up. The Saviour’s utterances have had time to sink into the hearts of His hearers, and now He takes up the theme and carries it to its lofty conclusion in Joh_10:30. The Saviour was seeking to win men; therefore He brings the truth to their minds gradually (Isa_28:10).

Joh_10:29. My Father … is greater than all.—i.e. than all those powers of evil which seek to destroy My flock. ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ πατρός μου.—Winer well remarks that these words are “not pleonastic.” They give, as they were intended to do, the most unmistakable definiteness to the statement.

Joh_10:31. ἐβάστασαν.—Perhaps the meaning is “lifted up and poised in their hands ready to cast at Him.” Again (Joh_8:59).—This, however, was a more bitter and determined attack.

Joh_10:32. These words would cause the Jews to reflect before carrying out their intentions. Notice the calmness of the Saviour in the face of this outburst, and the wisdom of His reply.

Joh_10:33, Blasphemy was punishable with stoning (Lev_24:11). But, unless they had been led away with rage, could they connect blasphemy with One who did so many good works? Their action, and the reason they gave, form a clear proof that they understood Jesus to claim the divine Sonship and oneness with God.

Joh_10:34. The law (νόμος), signifies here the Old Testament generally—the elder revelation as a whole. Our Lord did not wish to drive these men into open antagonism; He tried to lead them, by reasoning from the less to the greater, to recognise how far His claim was from blasphemy. In your law—the law by which you consider yourselves bound—those are called gods to whom the word of God came (Psa_82:6). And if even tyrannical judges, etc., were called gods, how much more may the eternal Son whom the Father hath sanctified, etc., assume the title Son of God? “The word which gives the name of gods to the lowest judges and prophets in Israel, in the well-understood sense of their being bearers and executors of individual utterances of God, whether judicial or prophetic—this, as a word of Scripture, they were constrained to hold inviolable; while in His case, who is essentially God’s consecrated One and God’s Messenger, the Mediator of His perfected revelation, to whom the Father has Himself given consecration and office in its most essential form—in His case they will count it as blasphemy that He calls Himself the Son of God” (Lange, Life of Christ). “To stand in close relation with the theocracy was to be covered with its glory.… Judaism and rabbinism had widened the chasm between God and man. Christ came to fill up the chasm; nay more, to show the divine and human in living, indissoluble union” (Reynolds).

Joh_10:39. Again, etc., points to Joh_7:30. See also Luk_4:30. There was, one may believe, a kingly dignity and power about the Saviour which restrained these infuriated men not only from stoning Him, but from laying hands on Him.

Joh_10:40. Beyond Jordan.—Peræa. To the place, etc.—i.e. to Bethania in the ancient Gaulonitis, now Jaulan (vide Joh_1:28). See Mar_10:1 : “He cometh into the borders of Judæa and beyond the Jordan.” St. Mark, in this succinct notice, comprises the two journeys—that to Jerusalem at the feast of dedication, and this to Peræa. Matthew mentions the latter of these only (Joh_19:1). But even in these minute references we see that the two Synoptists and St. John are practically in agreement.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Joh_10:22-41

Joh_10:22-39. The power of prejudice in blinding men to the truth.—The feast of dedication (vide Notes) was not of divine appointment. Attendance at Jerusalem was not demanded; it could be held elsewhere. Still, it was a festival that appealed to patriotic hearts. A feast of joy it was; marks of sorrow were to be banished; the city was illuminated, etc. Its celebration could not fail to awaken in the hearts of the people a desire for freedom from the Roman yoke. Jesus seized the opportunity to meet the leaders of His people and again assert His claims. They, it seemed, were equally anxious to have those claims decided. Notice,

1. The eager inquiry;

2. The clear answer;

3. The malignant charge begotten of prejudice and disappointment;

4. The calm refutation.

I. The eager inquiry.—

1. Among the crowds at the feast Jesus walked intent on His mission. It was never forgotten. It was winter not only in the outer world, but even at this festival time in the hearts of the Jews—a winter of despair of deliverance. Would a springtide of freedom ever bloom again for the nation?

2. Would this claimant to the Messiahship bring such a blessed period? They had been meditating on Christ’s words. All men indeed had been “musing in their hearts” concerning Him. Could He be the messenger predicted by the ancient prophetic words in passages read during the festival? (Zec_2:10; Zec_3:8, etc.). “Tell us plainly,” they cried, we may imagine, in despairing tone. “We would fully understand the meaning displayed, yet hidden, under Thy parables. Art Thou the Messiah?”

II. The clear answer.—

1. In His reply Jesus pointed them to the fact that He had often told them (see Notes). And again, in patient love, He pointed to His teaching, which they had heard, as it was delivered openly; and to His works, mighty and beneficent, in proof of His claim to be the good Shepherd of His people, the divine Son sent by the Father.

2. And then He showed them that it was because their inner spirit had no true affinity with Him and with the Father that they lingered still outside His fold. It was because of this that they could not, would not, enter into the blessedness of His flock—eternal life and eternal safety.

3. His flock, who follow Him, know and rejoice in this blessedness; for their ground of confidence is in the Eternal. They realise that the good Shepherd is one in love and power with the Father. And to leave those Jews in no doubt as to His claim and position He added the sublime words, “I and My Father are one.”

III. The malignant charge begotten of prejudice and disappointment.—

1. We can in a measure understand the effect such words would have on those Jews who had listened to them, biassed by the training of rabbinical traditionalism and blinded by prejudice. This the Messiah they dreamed of, longed for! Away the thought! Their law, the prophetic word, Christ’s own heavenly teaching and mighty works, all went for nothing, the memory of them was clean blotted out, as prejudice and hate rose within them. These blinded their eyes to the truth. And it was not that this prejudice and hate arose from ignorance. In such a case they are in part excusable. Here they arose from spiritual pride and obstinate self-will. “Ye will not come to Me,” etc. (Joh_5:40). This was their condemnation.

2. And their action is a warning for all time. How often do intellectual or religious prejudices keep men from truth, and lead to acts of sinful violence? Thus the Jews, led away by their prejudices and prepossessions into rage and madness, seized the stones scattered around—there were building operations proceeding on the yet unfinished temple—and were ready to stone our Lord, putting forward as their excuse His alleged blasphemy. They clearly understood, it is evident, the nature and extent of His claim. They would even have been inclined to so far admit that it had been proved; but its loftiness, unworldliness, and spirituality opposed and defeated their temporal expectations, and their answer to Christ’s claims were hatred, rage, and stones uplifted ready to be cast at Him. This has always been the reply of traditionalism baffled by the clear presentation of truth, e.g. the Inquisition and the Reformation, the Vatican and Galileo, Savonarola, etc.

IV. The calm refutation.—

1. Calmly and unmoved the Saviour repelled their charge, and convinced them for the moment of the folly of their action. He referred them to their sacred Scriptures, which they believed “could not be made void,” in which even unjust and tyrannical judges are called gods (vide Notes, Joh_10:34-36). “If you find no blasphemy in those words of the Scriptures you revere, how can you charge Me with such a crime, when by word and work I have testified to you the justice of My claim?”

2. They were silent, but not convinced. It was their heart that needed to be changed and converted. They would fain have seized Him; but conscience, and a moral power emanating from the Saviour’s person, making itself felt (vide Notes, Joh_10:39), paralysed them, and so “He passed out of their hand.”

Joh_10:28-30. The eternal safety of Christ’s people.—Believers stand firmly on the promises of God in Christ. When men believe in Him, they find all the promises, so far as they refer to this life, to be yea and amen. This is surely an earnest that the promises for the future will also be fulfilled. Believers know how the power of the risen life works within them; and as they know from experience that Jesus is the same yesterday and to-day, so they are assured He will be for ever. His promises do not and will never fail.

I. Christ is the giver of eternal life.—

1. That spiritual and undying life begins here. It is felt pulsating through all the avenues of being. The believer is “a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, they have become new.”

2. But it is an earnest of the eternal life to come. The most of men believe in an immortality of some sort. Even the longing for it in our hearts is in some sort an evidence; for this desire was not implanted in vain, surely. The incompleteness around seems to demand a state where the imperfect will be fully rounded.

3. The world’s greatest uninspired thinkers have not, however, been able to rise to the conception of eternal life given us in the gospel. They could not pronounce definitely on the question of personality. But our Lord revealed this truth. It is no mere vague, unconscious existence He gives. It is eternal life,—life pulsating, vigorous as that of the little child raised at His word, Talitha cumi; or that of Lazarus sitting with his Lord at the supper table at Bethany (Joh_12:2); or higher still, that of His own glorified person, as He appeared to His disciples after His resurrection.

4. And this personal, individual, eternal existence comes through living union with the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. Our Shepherd’s hands will hold us with invulnerable might when we are thus united with Him.

II. The ground of the believer’s safety.—

1. The Father gives the Son His believing people Joh_6:37; Joh_6:39), gives Him unlimited power “over all flesh,” so that He may give eternal life, etc. (Joh_17:2). And the Father dots not give the Son an inheritance which may be taken from Him. The wicked imagine it is possible (Psa_2:2-3; Luk_20:14; Act_4:29). But He that sits in heaven, who is over all, will paralyse every foe. So that even supposing it were possible, a mere supposition, that any could pluck Christ’s sheep out of His hand, still they would have to reckon with Him who is above all.

2. More than that; there is in reality no distinction between the power of Christ and the power of the Father here. The sublime utterance, “I and My Father are one,” dispels every fear. Believers are equally the care of Christ and the Father. There is unity of will, of power, of property, of nature between them. Therefore, as Jesus said, “All Mine are Thine,” etc. (Joh_17:10). The Father did not give them from His hand, as He gave them to the Son as chief Shepherd. In the Son’s hand they are also in the Father’s.

3. “Our salvation, therefore, rests on almighty power” (1Pe_1:5). “He who holds in His right hand seven stars,” etc. (Rev_1:16), is the Lord, the eternal Son. “If He is for us, who can be against us?”

III. The blessedness of this promise should be a motive to joyful enduring—

1. Believers should seek to rise to full trust in this promise. This will give them strength for duty and courage in temptation or trial.

2. The assured prospect that all things will “work together for good,” whether life or death, will give them joy and comfort in their course.

3. This trust also will give them more power for good in the world. The doubting, fearing, backsliding—these are the weakness of the Church. Those who go manfully forward, trusting on those divine promises, are the “lights in the world,” “the salt of the earth.”

HOMILETIC NOTES

Joh_10:41. Upon what kind of life did Jesus Christ set the seal of His blessing?—

1. He specially blessed the spirit and ministry of John the Baptist; and yet John did no miracle, (a) It is possible to be true, (b) courageous, (c) self-controlled, (d) illustrious, and yet to do no miracle.

2. That this approval was in no sense exceptional is made plain by other parts of Jesus Christ’s recognition of man’s life and work, (a) Seventy returned, (b) cup of cold water, (c) employment of talents. All this is made the clearer by a case on the other side, “In Thy name done many wonderful works,” etc. When did Jesus Christ ever set a man in high honour in His kingdom simply because the man was a worker of miracles? What, then, are the qualities which God most esteems in us? “A meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight,” etc. “The Lord loveth a cheerful giver,” etc. Nowhere is the brilliant man singled out, etc. “Many that are first,” etc.

1. A word to the poor;

2. women;

3. nobodies. What doth the Lord thy God require of thee? Miracles? “To do justly,” etc. Covet earnestly the best gifts, and yet charity above all!—Dr. Joseph Parker.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Joh_10:28. Certainty of salvation.—We are certain of our salvation, since we know it rests in the hand of Christ. Those, however, who seek it through the saints or by their own works, let them take heed as to what sort of assurance they have. The most part doubt, some despair.—Lyser U.S.

That Church which erects doubt as to the believer’s state of grace into a dogma leads one to assume that she wishes her faithful adherents to entertain a certain reserve or fear in reference to the reception of the witness of the Holy Ghost within them, lest that by the complete cessation of doubt a too great inner freedom and self-dependence should spring up in them. The Christian—it would almost seem as if they meant this—should never attain to full spiritual freedom, in case he should no longer feel the need of—should, indeed, feel independent of—the manifold and often repeated means of help provided by the Church.—Thiersch, in Besser’s “Bibelst.”

Joh_10:29. The Creator keeps His word with us.… Will you, with vast cost and pains, educate your children to be adepts in their several arts, and as soon as they are ready to produce a masterpiece call out a file of soldiers to shoot them down? We must infer our destiny from the preparation.—Emerson.

To me the eternal existence of my soul is proved from my idea of activity. If I work incessantly till my death, nature is bound to give me another state of existence when the present can no longer sustain my spirit.—Goethe.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

FOURTH SECTION

The separation between the friends and foes of Christ, the children of light and the children of darkness

s Joh_10:22 to Joh_13:30

I

ANTITHESIS BETWEEN THE UNBELIEVERS IN JUDEA, WHO WISH TO KILL THELORD, AND THE BELIEVERS IN PEREA, AMONG WHOM HE FINDS REFUGE. THE FEAST OF THEDEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE. THE FINAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FALSE MESSIANIC HOPE ANDTHE TRUE MESSIANIC WORK; FOLLOWED SPEEDILY BY THE STONING. THE TRUE AND THE FALSEDEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE. CHRIST THE SON OF GOD. THE ACTUAL REALIZATION OF THE DIVINEAND MESSIANIC FORMS OF THE OLD COVENANT

Joh_10:22-42

22And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication [Then the feast of the dedication 23occurred at Jerusalem], and [omit and] it [It] was winter [,]. And Jesus walked [was walking, περιεπάτει] in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt [agitate our souls, hold our minds in suspense]? If thou be [art] the Christ, tell us plainly [frankly]. 25Jesus answered them, I told you [spoke to you], and ye believed [believe]30 not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they [these] bear 26witness of me. But [Nevertheless] ye believe not, because [for, γάρ] ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.31 27My sheep hear [heed] my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man [and no one shall] pluck [tear] them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me [who hath given them to me], is greater [something greater, μεῖζον] than all,32 and no man [no one] is able to pluck [tear] them 30[anything (at all) ] out of my Father’s hand. I and my [the] Father are one [Ἐγὼ χαὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν].

31Then the Jews [The Jews therefore] took up stones again to [in order to, ἵνα] stone him. 32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my [the] Father; for which of those [these] works do ye stone me ? 33The Jews answered him, saying, [omit saying].33 For a good work we stone thee not; [,] but for blasphemy; and because that [omit that] thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law,’ I said, Ye are gods?’ (Psa_82:6). 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken [made void], 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath [omit hath] sanctified, and sent into the world, ‘ Thou blasphemest;’ because I said, I am the 37Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do [them], though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe [understand],34 that the Father is in me, and I in him [in the Father].35

39Therefore they sought again to take [seize] him; but [and] he escaped [passed out, went forth, ἐξῆλθεν] out of their hand, 40And went away again beyond [the] Jordan into [to] the place where John at first baptized [was baptizing]; and there he abode. 41And many resorted [came] unto him, and said, John did no miracle [John indeed wrought no sign]: but all things that John spake [said] of this man were true. 42And many believed on [in] him there.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[Lücke introduces this Discourse at the Feast of Dedication, Joh_10:22-42, with the remark: “The conflict thickens, the issue looms up with certainty, the great hour approaches swiftly.” The section is remarkable for one of the strongest assertions of Jesus concerning His dynamic and essential oneness with, and personal distinction from, God the Father, Joh_10:30.—P. S.]

Joh_10:22. The feast of the dedication of the temple.—Christ, after His appearance at the Feast of Tabernacles, returned to Galilee (Leben Jesu, vol. II. p. 1004), in order to prepare the great body of His disciples for the last decisive journey to Jerusalem. The proof of this is given above. According to the testimony of the Synoptists, Jesus was followed at his final departure from Galilee by great multitudes that accompanied him through Peræa, whereas the greatest secrecy had been observed on the occasion of His journey to the Feast of Tabernacles.36 The charge of “harmonistic hypothesis,” made against this assumption, is utterly without weight; πάλιν, Joh_10:40, assuredly has reference to the presupposition that Jesus had before sojourned in Peræa. Tholuck alleges, in opposition to the view of Paulus, Ebrard, P. Lange and Neander, that the feast of the dedication of the temple might be celebrated out of Jerusalem; it, however, by no means follows that it must be celebrated out of that city. The evangelical history is made to exhibit a strange anomaly by the supposition that Jesus passed two entire months (between the Feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication of the Temple) in Jerusalem, without leaving any traces or reminiscences of His stay. This journey to the Feast of the Dedication may be regarded as an episode in the journey to the last Passover,—the latter journey being begun with full decision of purpose as openly and at as early a period as possible.

The Feast of the Dedication of the Temple was by no means so insignificant; it must, from its nature, draw the Israelite, and hence the Lord individually to the temple, so long as He had not come to a positive rupture with the temple. It was the feast of renovation (חֲנֻכָּה, ἐγκαίνια) instituted by Judas Maccabæus (1Ma_4:36; 2Ma_10:6; Joseph. Antiqu. X. 7, 6 [XII. 7, 7]) in commemoration of the purification and fresh dedication of the temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes; it was the type of the Christian festival of church dedication (which is also called ἐγκαίνια). The celebration lasted eight days, commencing with the 25th of the month Kislev (the middle of December); its jubilant pageantry resembled that of the Feast of Tabernacles; there was especially a general illumination of the city, and hence the feast was also called τὰ ψῶτα, while from its fundamental idea it derived the name of ἡμέραι ἐγκαινιαμοῦ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου.

At Jerusalem.—Even if there was a general observance of the feast throughout the country, its centre was of course the temple.37

It was winter (-weather).—As this remark is designed as an explanation of what follows, it is not to be regarded (with Lücke [Meyer, Alford]) as merely denoting the wintry season, in order thus to explain [to Greek readers] why Jesus walked in a porch of the temple, particularly as the temple was ordinarily the constant resort of Jesus when He was in Jerusalem. The raw wintry weather is at the same time indicated (Mat_16:3, Clericus, Lampe), very probably in explanation of the circumstance that Jesus was, for the instant not encircled and protected by the customary throngs of faithful followers, when the Jews suddenly surrounded Him.38

Joh_10:23. In Solomon’s porch [arcade, colonnade].—The στοὰ Σολομῶνος (Act_3:11) was according to tradition incorporated into the new temple buildings as a venerable remnant of the temple of Solomon (Josephus Antiqu. XX. 9, 7). It was situated on the eastern side of the temple-porch (στοὰ ἀνατολική in Josephus). Exegetes direct attention to the trace of eye-witness-ship in this remark (comp. Joh_8:20).39

[In the same place the apostles afterwards wrought miracles and proclaimed the gospel of Christ, Act_3:11; Act_5:12. Large portions of massive masonry, evidently belonging to the early ages of the temple, are still found on the temple area. Dr. Robinson (Researches, Am. ed., 1856, vol. Ι. p. 289), after describing these ruins, says: “The former temple was destroyed by fire, which would not affect these foundations; nor is it probable that a feeble colony of returning exiles could have accomplished works like these. There seems, therefore, little room for hesitation in referring them back to the days of Solomon, or rather of his successors, who, according to Josephus, built up here immense walls, ‘immovable for all time’ (ἀκινήτους τῷ παντὶ ξρόνῳ, Antiq. XV. 11, 3). Ages upon ages have since rolled away, yet these foundations still endure, and are immovable as at the beginning. Nor is there aught in the present physical condition of these remains, to prevent them from continuing so long as the world shall last. It was the temple of the living God; and, like the everlasting hills on which it stood, its foundations were laid for all time.”—P. S.]

Joh_10:24. Then came the Jews around him [lit. gathered around him in a circle, ἐκύκλωσαναὐτόν].—It is manifest that Jesus is at this time destitute of adherents,—a situation of which the hostile Jews promptly take advantage.40 He finds Himself unawares encircled by them. He must, however, have had His reasons for permitting the arrival of this moment. Here again are things spoken, by which their most secret thoughts are laid bare and exposed to the illumination of the word of Christ. As a matter of course, these Jews are Pharisees; the position assumed by them and Jesus’ answer to them, Joh_10:26, prove that they are likewise members of the Sanhedrin.

How long dost thou agitate our soul? [Ἕως πότε τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν αἴρεις;]—Not: how long dost Thou take possession of our hearts, but, how long dost Thou raise us up, excite us, how long dost Thou hold our souls in suspense? See the illustrations from the Classics and Josephus in Meyer. [In Josephus ψυχὴν αἴρειν means to uplift the soul, to raise the courage (Antiq. III. 2, 3; III. 5, 1), but it has also the more general sense to excite the soul (= μετεωρίζειν), which in this case was done by Messianic expectations.—P. S.]

If thou art the Christ.—The usual explanation, that they design from the first hypocritically to draw from Him some expression whereupon they may ground His condemnation, leaves unnoticed the ardent longing of the Jews for a temporal Messiah after their own heart,—a longing which occupies a conspicuous place in the gospel history. Hypocrisy certainly is at work, but only inasmuch as they have a presentiment that He will not answer their chiliastic cravings. There is then a visionary longing as well as a fanatical irony in their question (comp. chap. 8) The feast of the dedication was the festival of Judas Maccabæus who had driven the heathenish Syrians out of Jerusalem. On that day did the Jews wish more ardently than ever that a new Maccabee or Hammerer might arise and beat down the Romans.

Joh_10:25. I have spoken to you.—The εἰπον ὑμῖν must not be translated: I have told you so. For that would be an unmistakable affirmative, and would at once present to them the alternative either of paying Him homage as the Messiah, or of seizing and trying Him as a false prophet. The εἷπον might indeed be considered to have a positive reference to the foregoing εἰπὲ ἡμῖν παῤῥησίᾳ: “I have (plainly) told you, but,” etc.41 Christ subsequently, however, Sets forth His desire to be first acknowledged by them in the works that He does in the Father’s name (not in the official Messianic name). Therefore we read: “I have spoken to you—and ye believe not—: the works,” etc.,—i.e. I have given you a token of what I am. This answer is not really evasive, for it is Christ’s will to be known as the Messiah by what He is to them, and not by their Messianic idea in what He is. According to Meyer Jesus had already told them many times that He was the Messiah, though not so directly as He had told the Samaritan woman. But the tragical part of this history and the proof of how far a would-be orthodox theology may depart from the living word of God, is contained in the very fact that it was necessary for Him to lock up His Messianic name from them in His own heart, until the moment (Mat_26:64) when their fanatical Messianic conception condemns Him to the cross.

Joh_10:26. For ye are not of my sheep.—A statement of the reason of their unbelief. Ye do not recognize Me in My word and work, and, not knowing Me, ye do not subordinate yourselves to Me and trust in My guidance; on the contrary, ye desire a Messiah, that he may be the subservient tool of your passions.—As I said unto you.—The omission (see the Text. Notes) was probably occasioned by the fact that no verbal declaration to this effect is to be found. Such a declaration is, however, conveyed in intention by the parables of the Good Shepherd, John 10. Hence we must not with Euthymius and others refer these words to the subsequent discourse of Jesus. And so much the less, since entirely new considerations are therein presented to us: 1. that the sheep follow the Shepherd, 2. that He gives His sheep eternal life, etc. Neither can any importance be attached to the doubts of Strauss and others concerning the probability of the assumption that Jesus is reminding His hearers of a parabolical discourse uttered by Him two months before; and Meyer justly observes that it was not characteristic of Jesus to repeat His more lengthy discourses.

Joh_10:27-29. My sheep hoar my voice, etc.—Bengel: “Tria sententiarum paria, quorum singula et ovium fidem et pastoris bonitatem exprimunt per correlata.” But we apprehend the three correlative members somewhat differently, always placing the Shepherd before the sheep. In advance, however, comes the saying which embraces the whole: the sheep that are Mine, they hear My voice [τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς γου ἀκούουσιν]. The unfolding of this personal connection: a. I know them [κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά]: and they follow Me [καῖ ἀκολουθοῦσίν μοι]; b. I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish [κἀγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα]; c. none shall tear them out of My handοὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου]: the Father gave them to Me, and He is greater than all: none can tear them out of the Father’s hand.

In this arrangement of the propositions, Christ is the Shepherd, the principle of the relationship; with His personal conduct the conduct and relationship of the flock correspond. The first proposition (a) declares the foundation and condition of salvation; the second proposition (b) declares the blessing, internally and externally considered: because Christ gives them eternal life, they shall never perish in the terrors of eternity, death and judgment. The third proposition (c) is descriptive of the absolute protection which they enjoy. It has reference to the former word concerning the wolf. Exegesis, however, should not overlook the fact that the Jews at that time beheld the wolf in the Roman power which threatened destruction to their nation. If, then, Jesus means to say that the spiritual safety of believers, as the Church of Christ, should be secured in His hand, so too He says that in the hand of the Father who is exalted above every power of this world, they should at the same time be preserved from destructive oppression on the part of the Roman temporal power. Therefore, what the Jews in carnal and fanatical excitement sought in vain in their Messiah, they should really and truly find in Christ.

According to Augustine and Calvin, Christ’s words declare the doctrine of the grace of final perseverance; Tholuck agrees, but insists upon the condition which Augustinian and Calvinistic divines imply, that the marks of a true sheep must be discoverable in them that are kept, and that according to 1Jn_2:19, the apostate is regarded as not really belonging to the Church, because of his failure to comply with the condition of walking in the light. Meyer, on the other hand, remarks in accordance with the Lutheran belief, that the possibility of falling away is not excluded by the words of Christ. What is excluded is, above all things, the confounding of different stages: he who is awakened may fall away as an awakened man; he who is sealed is sealed. A dispute upon this subject, without distinction of the different stages, is a battle of words.42

Joh_10:30. I and the Father are one.—This grand saying of Jesus serves primarily as a proof of the preceding statement; hence its primary signification is: land the Father are one in the work of salvation. The heart of the Shepherd corresponds with the nature of the sheep, which nature the Father created by His gratia præveniens. The Shepherd’s call of grace corresponds with the divine vocation in them. His eternal life that He puts into their hearts, corresponds with the destiny prepared for them by God,—that they shall never perish. His spiritual preservation corresponds with the historical preservation ordained by God: the triumphant church of Christ, is the triumphant Kingdom of God. But this soteriological oneness of Father and Son in work and government is at the same time expressive of their ontological oneness in power and substance. This saying, therefore, has not a mere soteriological reference to the oneness of the hand or the oneness in power, as set forth in this syllogism: (a) No man can pluck them out of My Father’s hand; (b) I and My Father are one; (c) consequently no man can pluck them out of My hand. (Chrysostom, Calvin, and others, Lücke). It is rather the unity of the whole parallel, “ the co-operation of Father and Son in the whole economy of salvation.” Tholuck after Tertullian and others; comp. 1Co_3:8. “In the Arian controversies Alexander, Athanasius and many others made use of this passage against the Arians as a dictum probans, declaring it to mean the unitas naturæ of the Logos and the Father, while the Arians on the other hand held that it signified the consensus voluntatis. The interpretation of the Socinians, who regarded it as signifying the unitas voluntatis et potestatis, was not indeed rejected by the representatives of the Church, but the latter considered the unitas naturæ to be implied by the unitas potentiæ. See Gerhard I. p. 252, Lyser and others. Even Calvin—although on this account accused by Hunnius of a scelus—brought forward this argument. The point treated of by this saying is, in fact, not the Trinitarian relationship, but the relation of the Incarnate One to the Father.” Tholuck. Meyer is also of this opinion.43 In upholding this view, however, they overlook these facts: 1. That the economical Trinity [of revelation] points back to the ontological Trinity [of essence]; 2. that the Jews apprehend this expression ontologically, and hence accuse Christ of blasphemy against God; 3. that Christ does not correct their ontologicai conception of His meaning, but favors it, and in conclusion, as they fully believe, confirms it, Joh_10:38.

[The neuter ἕν denotes, according to the connection and for the purpose of the argument, unity of will and power, which rests on the unity of essence or nature; for power is one of the divine attributes which are not outside of the divine essence, but constitute it. Even if we confine ἕν to dynamic unity, we have hero one of the strongest arguments for the strict divinity of Christ. It is implied even more in ἐσμεν than in ἕν. No creature could possibly thus associate himself in one common plural with God Almighty without shocking blasphemy or downright madness. In this brief sentence we have, as Augustine and Bengel observe, a refutation both of Arianism and Sabellianism; ἕν refutes the former by asserting the dynamic (and, by implication, the essential) unity of the Father and the Son, Ἐγώ καὶ ὁ πατήρ and ἐσμεν refute the latter by asserting the personal distinction. Sabellianism would require the masculine εἶς instead of the neuter, and this would be inconsistent with ἐσμεν and the self-conscious Ἐγώ.44—P. S.]

Joh_10:31. Took up stones again.—Again as Joh_8:59 and for a similar cause. The arrival of the decisive turning point in their wavering mood is again induced by Christ’s asseveration concerning His divine nature. They have no use for such a Messiah who contradicts their consciousness, that has become unitarian.—They have already caught up stones and raised them high in air (ἐβάστασαν); nevertheless the word of Jesus fetters their arm. It is the counteraction of the might of His Spirit; no doubt assisted, however, by the want of a literal formula, upon the strength of which they might securely bring Him to trial. His words are everywhere peculiar to Himself, the Man of the Spirit, and they are forever in doubt as to whether they have rightly understood Him. But the matter with which they think they can reproach Him, they subsequently declare.

Joh_10:32. Many good works have I shewed you from my Father.—Jesus answers them; that is, He replies to their sign-language. He has thoroughly understood them in their malice, but designates them as incomprehensible, in accordance with their own consciences to which He appeals.Καλὰ ἔργα, 1. Works of love: Baumg.-Crusius; 2. præclara opera, excellent works: Meyer; 3. irreproachable works: Luthardt. Special importance attaches to the ἔργον itself. The ἔργον ἐκ τοῦ πατρός is a miracle. Similarly, the ἔδειξα without doubt contains the idea of sign-giving. Καλόν is indicative of moral beauty, beneficence.—For which of these works do ye stone me? The ironicalness of this expression is unmistakable and invites an elucidation of biblical irony in general (comp. 2Co_12:13. A principal passage is Psalms 2). At the foundation, however, of this ironical speech lies the deeper meaning that He, in all His words and works, is but the representative of the Father; so that their every assault upon Him is a declaration of war against God Himself. Furthermore these words seem to assume 1. that capital punishment should not be inflicted on account of a word; 2. that it should be inflicted on account of a work, only inasmuch as that work is proved to be deserving of death. Execution should be preceded by a regular trial. Above all things we should fix our eyes upon the sublime composure of Jesus as manifested by His ironical speech in this condition of affairs.

Joh_10:33. For blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.—It is questioned whether the following καὶ ὄτι σύ, etc., is simply an explanation; according to Meyer: “For blasphemy and that because.” The καί would then be superfluous. They reproach Him with two things: first, that He places God on a par with Himself—and this they call blasphemy; secondly, that He makes Himself God—and in this they think they recognize the false prophet; although both ideas undoubtedly play into each other.

Joh_10:34. Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods?—In your law (see Joh_8:17), a reference to Psa_82:6. According to Tholuck and Ewald the psalm does not refer to angels or foreign princes but to unjust theocratic judges. אֱלחִֹים, Exo_21:6; Exo_22:28 (comp. 2Ch_19:5-7). “Moses uses it in a collective sense—Sept. to τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ; here in the Psalm it is a personal appellation of individuals; in parallel with θεοί is υἱοὶ ὑψίστου” Tholuck.—I said, εἶπα Ewald explains this: I thought ye were. Tholuck thinks it has reference to the institution of Moses; according to the subsequent explanation of the Lord, the expression refers to the fact that the λόγος τοῦ came to them,—that they were called to their office by the word of God. Full of meaning, then, is the idea of Cyril who considers the passage as significant of the λόγος ἄσαρκος; and that of Theodor-Mopsuest. (and Olshausen) who take it to mean the word of God’s revelations to the judges. In opposition to this Tholuck remarks that revelations were attributed only to the. Law-giver as judge. This latter view is, however, contrary to the Old Testament: every judge in the time of the judges was called by a λόγος θεοῦ, David and Solomon were so called and every royal or priestly Mashiach was assumed to have received such a call, inasmuch as he did at least receive it through the typical anointing. A principal consideration is this: the theocratical callings came by the Angel of the Lord, i.e., by Christ in the Old Testament, the λόγος ἄσαρκος, and hence those who were called received the name of Elohim.

Joh_10:35. If he called them gods.—Conclusion: a minori ad majus. In what respect: 1. from those blameworthy judges and their lofty title—to Christ (Bengel, Lücke); 2. from those who derived their dignity from the Mosaic institution, to Him whom God hath sanctified (Gerhard, Tholuck); 3. from those to whom the λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ did but come, to Him whom God sanctified and sent into the world, i.e., whom He has actually made His λόγος to the world; the Logos-nature of Christ is here implied though not expressed (Cyril, etc.). This last we hold to be the only correct conception, the only one satisfactory to the Old Testament Christology.

[Alford: “The argument is a minori ad majus. If in any sense they could be called gods,—how I much more properly He, whom, etc. They were only officially so called, onlyλεγόμενοι θεοί—but He, the only One, sealed and hallowed by the Father, and sent into the world (the aorists refer to the time of the Incarnation), is essentially θεός, inasmuch as He is υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. The deeper aim of this argument is, to show them that the idea of man and God being one, was not alien from their Old Testament spirit, but set forth there in types and shadows of Him, the real God-Man.”—P. S.]

And the Scripture cannot be broken; λυθῆναι, Mat_5:19; Joh_5:18; Joh_7:23. Be made invalid, subverted. Meyer: “The auctoritas normativa et judicialis of the Scripture cannot be done away with. Note here the idea of the unity of the Scriptures.” This practical sense of the Scripture certainly prevails here, although it is founded upon the inspiration of the sacred writings. (Gaussen, Stier). Inspiration is undoubtedly modifiable, though not by the distinction of important and “unimportant” words.

[Webster and Wilkinson: “This remark proves that the terms in which God made His revelation to man were regarded by our Lord as Divinely inspired; that the form as well as the substance of Scripture is given by inspiration of God, for His argument here is founded upon the mode of expression adopted by the sacred writers.” Godet: “ The expression shows the boundless confidence with which the Scripture word inspired Jesus.”—P. S.]

Joh_10:35. Whom the Father hath sanctified, etc.—Interpretations: 1. Melanchthon and others: the unctio with divine gifts and attributes; 2. Tholuck: consecration to the Messianic office, one with the σφραγίζειν, Joh_6:27, etc. (?). The meaning, in accordance with the idea of sanctification, is as follows: He has taken Him out from the world in order to appropriate Him to the world; i.e., He has made Him the God-Man, the now Man, the wonder of the new life, and has also accredited Him to you by His sinlessness and miraculous works. This is spoken in antithesis to the typical sanctification, or consecration to office, enjoyed by the Old Testament judges or messiahs. They were consecrated by men, by means of outward anointing or calling; He is consecrated by the Father, by the anointing of the Spirit and the attestation of works. This circumstance, then, contains the strongest intimation that He is in truth the Messiah, and at the same time furnishes the most conclusive evidence that He is no typical Messiah, but the real Messiah.

I am the Son of God.—Christ’s reasoning receives additional force from the antithesis between the real dignities and the titles. In respect of the dignities He proceeds a minori ad majus; in respect of the title a majors ad minus (gods, Son of God),—i.e., at least according to the literal expression as apprehended by them. This expression is also an explanation of the words: I and My Father are one. The conclusion, Joh_10:38, proves that the υἱὸς might, in accordance with rationalistic interpretation, be primarily understood as a mere official name.

Joh_10:37. If I do not the works.—The works of Christ are the Father’s works as new works, creative works, such as He can do only in oneness with the Father, Joh_9:3.—Believe me not.—A conditional absolution from belief; at once real and ironical.

Joh_10:38. And ye believe not me (might not—are not able to believe).—Distinction of a gradation in faith. They cannot, perchance, soar up to the direct view of His personality. This flight of faith is not allotted to every one. But they are able and are morally bound to set foot upon the first step of faith: to recognize the divinity of His mission by His works. Hence they will derive the knowledge that Christ stands in the closest communion with God, and thus a higher belief in His personality will be produced in them. There would hardly be an immediate knowledge on their part of His divine personality; and this also is unfavorable to the reading quoted above and recommended by Meyer [see Text. Notes].

That the Father is in me.—This is not the full import of that oneness with the Father, declared by Christ, Joh_10:30, but the living manifestation of it in His works; if they would not harden themselves, they would be in a condition believingly to take knowledge of that revelation, and their further progress in faith would be assured. In a sense, then, the περιχώρησις essentialis is but intimated here.45 Christ in His character as the Redeemer is in the Father by submersion, contemplation, by the seeing of His works; the Father is in Christ by revelation, appearance, co-operation in the works of Christ.

Joh_10:39. Again to take him.—(See Joh_8:30; Joh_8:32). This denotes a milder ebullition of their rage in comparison with their previous attempt to stone Him. The apparently obscurer and more indefinite saying of Christ seemed to demand a preliminary trial.

And he escaped out of their hands.—“Something in this of a miraculous nature (a rendering of Himself invisible), although assumed by many ancient exegetes and still by Baumg.-Crusius and Luthardt, is not intimated by John.” Meyer. But John has just shown that Christ was able so to impress His enemies as to render them powerless.

Joh_10:40. Again beyond the Jordan.—Peræa. See Note on Joh_10:22. In thus doing He has not given up the people, but He withdraws into a region of greater susceptibility. He was still bound to the last trial, as to whether the dynamical power of His friends would overcome that of His enemies or succumb to it, when the whole nation should be assembled at the Paschal Feast. He remained in that place from the time of the feast of the dedication until His journey to Bethany.

Joh_10:41. And many resorted unto him.—Bengel: Fructus posthumus officii Johannis. But we must not overlook the fact that Christ had before sojourned in Peræa and worked there.—John did no miracle.—Nevertheless he is attested by Christ. Himself in what he said of Him. And thus his testimony to Christ lives again and continues working to the furtherance of faith.

Starke: The different dedications of the Jewish temple: 1. Under Solomon, 1Ki_8:2; 1 Kings 2. under Hezekiah, 2Ch_29:17; 2Ch_29:19; 2 Chronicles 3. by Zerubbabel, Ezr_6:16; Ezra 4. by Judas Maccabæus, 1Ma_4:41; 2Ma_5:1; 2 Maccabees 5. in the time of Herod. Joseph. Antiqu. xv.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See the Exeg. Notes Joh_10:24-30 and Joh_10:34.

2. The longing of the Jews for a Messiah in its relation to the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, to Joh_6:15, and to similar moments in the evangelical history.

3. The temptation of Christ by the Jews, in connection with the temptation, Joh_8:1-11, and the temptation in the history of the Passion.

4. Christ here also evades their Messianic idea in order, on the other hand, to establish His own.—The life of Christ the ideal realization of Maccabæan heroism and of the new Dedication of the Temple.

5. The sheep of Christ, or the germs of the New Testament biblical doctrine of election, predestination and vocation, Rom_8:29.

6. “I and the Father are one.” (Joh_10:30). The soteriological foreground, the ontological background of this word. The distinction of Person: We; the oneness of substance: One.

[Comp. the Exeg. Notes.—Wordsworth in loc.: “We are one. Listen to both words ‘are’ and ‘one’. The word ‘ are’ delivers you from the heresy of Sabellius; the word ‘one’ (‘unum’) delivers you from that of Arius. (Aug.). Sail thou in the midst, between the Scylla of the one and the Charybdis of the other. Christians framed a new word, ‘Homoousion Patris (consubstantial with the Father), against the impiety of Arianism; but they did not coin a new thing by a new word. For the doctrine of the Homoousion is contained in our Lord’s own words,—‘I and My Father are one’—‘unum,’ one substance (Aug. Tract, xcvii. See also Aug. Serm. 139). And there were Christians in fact, before the name ‘Christians,’ was given to believers at Antioch. (Act_11:26). The same remark applies to the words ‘Trinity,’ θεοτόκος, and some others; against which exceptions have been made by some in modern times. It has been objected by Socinians and others, that these words of Christ do not signify oneness of substance, because our Lord used a similar expression when speaking of His disciples, in His prayer,—ἵνα πάντες ἔν ὦσιν, καθὼς σὺ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ, κἀγὼ ἑν σοὶ, ἴνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ἕν ὦσιν, Joh_17:21; comp. Joh_10:22-23. That language of Christ does indeed prove that the Father and the Son are not the same person; and so it is valid against the Sabellian heresy. But it does not show that they are not consubstantial. It is a comparison; and things compared are not identical. It contains a prayer, that all believers may be one in heart and will, as the Persons of the Trinity are; that by virtue of Christ’s Incarnation, by which He became Emmanuel,—God with us, God manifest in the flesh, or, as He there expresses it, ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς (Joh_17:23; Joh_17:26)—they may be united in the One Godhead. Indeed that language proves the consubstantiality of the Three Persons. Men are not different natures from each other; they are all of one blood (Act_17:26), of one substance,—being all from Adam and Eve. If the Son is inferior in nature to the Father, and different in substance from Him, the comparison could not have been made. The consubstantiality of all men, with a diversity of persons in each individual, and their union in God, is an apt illustration, as far as human things can be, of the true doctrine of the One Nature and Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.”—Owen: “Some refer this unity to one of purpose merely. But the context refers to power, as the attribute of the Father specially referred to. This shows that unity of power, rather than unity of purpose, is here predicated of the Father and Son. But a oneness of power—which with God is omnipotent power—involves the idea of a unity of being or essence, and shows that the Father and Son are essentially one. But even if a unity of will and purpose only is meant in the unity here spoken of, does not an absolute oneness in this respect presuppose essential unity? In either case, whether unity of power or purpose be intended, the passage teaches most clearly an essential unity of the Father and Son. The manifest design of the declaration is to prevent any misconception, which arises from the fact, that the sheep are spoken of as being in the hand of both the Father and the Son. The question might arise, how, at one and the same time, they could be in the hand of two distinct beings, each so powerful that none could pluck them from their hand. The answer, simple, concise, and unmistakable, is that these Persons are one and the same in essence; and that so united are they in their essential being, that whoever claims the protection and care of one, has an equal demand, upon that of the other. Hence there was nothing strange in the assertion, that the sheep were in His hand, and also in that of his Father. That this is the great argument of the passage, seems too plain to be for a moment questioned. To claim that a mere unity of will and purpose, aside from an essential unity of being, meets the requisitions of this declaration, when considered in relation to the context so clear and well defined, is as absurd as to say that two persons may have distinct and personal possession of a thing at one and the same time, merely because there exists between them a unity of will and purpose. That essential unity is here intended is clear, not only, as we have shown, from the scope of the passage, which requires something more than oneness of purpose, but also from the following context, and especially Joh_10:33, where the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son is expressly declared, in terms which admit of no other interpretation, than as referring to the mysterious and ineffable union taught so clearly in the passage before us. The numeral one is the Greek neuter, the idea of essence and not of personality being predominant. Had the masculine form been employed, it would have been I and My Father are one person, which would involve an untruth and an absurdity.”—P. S.]

7. The authority of Holy Scripture. Be it observed that Christ by His quotation also reminded the unjust judges who stood opposed to Him of the threat in the Psalm cited: ye shall die.

8. Foretokens of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ in the Old Testament. Whom the Father hath sanctified, i.e., really consecrated by the anointing of the Spirit (after Psalms 2), in antithesis to the typical consecrations under the Old Covenant.

9. The majestic escapes and flights of Christ.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The Jewish dedication of the temple: 1. In respect of its noble destination, 2. in respect of its degeneracy, 3. in respect of its terrible end in our text.—The degeneration of Christian church dedications. Its gradation: 1. The church is glorified more than Christ its Lord; 2. the festival is more a cause of rejoicing than the church; 3. attempts are finally made to cast out the Lord as the disturber of this joy.—Nevertheless, church dedication, as the birth-day feast of individual congregations of the Reformation, has the qualities of a delightful festival.—Christ suddenly surrounded by enemies in Solomon’s porch: provocative of a query as to the whereabouts of His friends.—Hindrances of Christians from the public assembling around the Lord, a measure of their fervor and faithfulness: 1. Wind and weather; 2. amusements; 3. contagious example.—Enemies around! The ever fresh experience of the always victorious Christ.—How long dost thou make us to doubt? or the wicked, temptations ambiguity of the Jews’ question: 1. The old and fading desire that He might become a Christ in their sense; 2. the ver new and over higher blazing enmity unto death.—Christ’s presence of mind at the moment when He sees Himself surrounded by enemies: 1. In His cautious and yet decided reply to their question, Joh_10:25-28; John 2. in the calm and triumphant answer and throat, Joh_10:31-32; John 3. in the profound and yet clear response to their charge of heresy, Joh_10:34-38; John 4. in the majestic answer in deed to their attempt, Joh_10:39-40.—The import of Christ’s answer, Joh_10:25 ff.: I am not a Christ in your sense, but the Christ in the name of the Father.—They do not know the Shepherd because they are not His sheep.—The word of Christ concerning His sheep a presentation of their cordial reciprocal conduct: 1. He is their Shepherd; they hear His voice; 2. He knows them; they follow Him; 3. He gives them eternal life; they do not” perish; 4. He keeps them securely in His hand; they rest safely through Him in the Father’s hand.—The great word of Christ: I and the Father are one—how it holds good: 1. Of His work of redemption in the life of His people and in the world; 2. of His redemptive impulse and His consciousness; 3. of His divine essence in the eternity of God.—” Ye are gods,” or the presages in the Old Testament of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.—” The Scripture cannot be broken.” In particular not in its testimony to Christ. Christ sanctified by the Father; this, to a comprehender of the Old Testament, presented the following meaning: consecrated and anointed by the Holy Ghost as the real Messiah, in accordance with Psalms 2; Isa_61:1.

The fearful contradictions in the conduct of fanatical passion: 1. First flattering, hypocritical questions, then murderous threats and assaults; 2. first the stoning, then the accusation; 3. first the charge of blasphemy, then the proposal of investigation (wished to take Him).—The charge of blasphemy brought against the Lord by the Jews, on account of the holy revelation of His divine consciousness of being one with the Father.

The three great vouchers for the divinity of Christ: 1. The Scriptures; 2. His works; 3. the direct impression of His personality.—The separation between the friends and enemies of Christ.

The retreat of Christ into Peræa a prelude to the flight of the Christians into Peræa before the destruction of Jerusalem.—Peræa, or the mountain sanctuaries of the Church of Christ (in the Piedmontese mountains, the mountains of Bohemia, the Cevennes, the Scottish hills, the mountains of Switzerland.—But principally in spiritual hill-countries, or in a popular life in which the heights of spirituality and the depths of simplicity and humility are united).—The believers of Peræa, or how John’s work revives, glorified, in the work of Christ.—The flights of Christ lay the foundation for the refuge of sinners.

Starke: Nova. Bibl. Tub.: Church dedication an old but abused custom.—Zeisius: A Christian can, in pursuance of his Saviour’s example, with a good conscience observe those festivals which, though instituted by men, have a single aim to the glory of God and the edification of the Church.—Quesnel: The walks of our Saviour are not idle ones, etc.—The concourse of many men even to a holy place is not invariably an indication of zeal for learning.—As Christ proved by His work that He is the Messiah and Son of God, so shouldest thou prove by thy works that thou art a Christian and a child of God.—Zeisius: Believers may be entirely certain of the divine favor and of their salvation in this world and the next, Rom_8:31-39.—Cramer: Steadfastness in the faith does not rest in human strength, but we are by the grace of God preserved unto salvation.—The hand of the Father is God’s omnipotence.—Ibid.: The Father is one Person, the Son is another, and yet Father and Son are not divided but are one in substance. See the mystery of the Holy Trinity.—Holy Scripture is the sword wherewith we may strike our adversaries.—On Joh_10:35. Magistrates are indued by God Himself with a lofty title; hence they must not be despised, but honored.—Majus: Christ goes from one place to another with His Gospel.—Ibid.: Yet truth triumphs finally.—Zeisius: Godly meditation upon the strange and wonderful things that formerly came to pass in this or that place, may be a powerful incentive to repentance and faith.

Gerlach: He and the Father are not εἶς, one Person, but ἕν, one divine Being.—Lisco: Since He (the Father) is greater, mightier than all, than all hostile powers, Christ’s friends are safe under the protection and guidance of the Almighty, nay, safe under the protection of both (Father and Son).—It is only malefactors that are usually persecuted; why then do ye persecute Me, who have conferred only benefits upon you?—Braune: He believes the works, who through them experiences suggestions and presentiments of the divine in Jesus; he believes Jesus, who knows that God is truly in Him.—Gossner: If Thou be Christ, tell us plainly.—Ye are not of My sheep: ye are in the Church, but not of the Church.—I know My sheep. The whole world may judge them as it will; He knows what to think of them.—My sheep follow Me. It is the magnet of love, that draws and drives, voluntarily on both sides.—Eternal Life.—Who can resist the hand of the Almighty or despoil it of anything? How sweetly and securely, then, may we repose in His hand!—The salvation of the chosen sheep of Christ stands firm, for 1. they belong to Christ, from whom no violence can ravish anything; 2. they are the gift of the Father, a gift of infinite love, presented by Him to His Song of Solomon 3. they are an irrevocable gift that can never be taken back; 4. they are the gift of a Father who is mightier and greater than all creatures.—To their stony reply He makes a right loving rejoinder.—As they caught up stones, He once more laid hold of their hearts.—Can it be wondered at, that the holiest truths we preach are railed at as errors and fanaticism, when Jesus Christ Himself was treated as a blasphemer because He spake the truth?—On Joh_10:37. A ghostly-man must be ghostly-minded, a Christian must have the mind of Christ, a child of God must be godly-minded; they must lead lives spiritual, Christian, and worthy of God, or make no professions so to live.—He escaped out of their hands, but they shall not escape Him.—He stays as long as He can,—until they begin stoning Him, until He finds everything walled up and petrified.

Heubner: The Church is permitted [within proper limits] to institute festivals in commemoration of great benefits from the Lord (Festival of the Reformation; Days of Prayer and Humiliation, of Thanksgiving).

Joh_10:23. He who here walked in a porch was more than all the Peripatetics and Stoics.—Jesus reveals Himself only to still and deep souls.—Many scoff at the figure: “Sheep, Flock of Jesus.” O were they but sensible of the warmth and tenderness of that love which chose the figure!—A believer must lose his faith in Jesus before he can be torn away from Him.—The enemy can disperse and scatter outward societies but not the confederation of hearts.

Joh_10:33. They themselves were the blasphemers.

Joh_10:41. John did no miracles. In this very thing Jesus was to have the preeminence over John.

Joh_10:42. Thus John’s preaching is working even to this day.

Schleiermacher: Art thou the Christ? No doubt they said as did others: Never man did such miracles before, etc.; but because they found in Him no food for their carnal natures, no encouragement for their lust of outward distinctions among men, their souls were kept in suspense: they wavered and fluctuated between faith and unbelief,—nothing firm took form in them. Hence they demanded only the letter and hoped for good from it. (All their fanatical claims, however, were attached to the letter; they held that if Jesus were the Messiah, He must be a Messiah in their sense of the term, opposed as that sense was to the divine Word).—But why did the Redeemer keep from them this trifling gift of the letter? In the first place, He would permit nothing to turn Him from the path on which He had once entered; secondly, the time was approaching when (at a formal trial) the Lord should hear this same question from those who, as the spiritual superiors of the people, deriving their superiority from the gradual conformation of time, had a right to demand of Him the decisive letter. So for that occasion He reserved it. Then that letter, being in the right place, also possessed the highest fulness of spirit and life.

[Craven: From Chrysostom: Joh_10:30. I and My Father are one; this is added that we may not suppose that the Father protects while He is too weak to do so.

Joh_10:34-35. Our Lord did not correct the Jews as if they misunderstood His speech, but confirmed and defended it in the very sense in which they had taken it.

Joh_10:39-40. Christ after discoursing on some high truth commonly retired immediately, to give time to the fury of the people to abate.—From Augustine: Joh_10:27-29. Of these sheep, 1. the wolf robbeth none, 2. the thief taketh none, 3. the robber killeth none.

Joh_10:30. We are one; what He is, that am I, in respect of essence, not of relation.

Joh_10:34-35. If men by partaking of the word of God are made gods, much more is the Word, of which they partake, God.—From Theophylact: Joh_10:41. Our Lord often brings His people into solitary places, thus ridding them of the society of the unbelieving, for their furtherance in the faith.—Christ departs from Jerusalem, i.e., the Jewish people, and goes to a place where are springs of water, i.e., the Gentile church [?].—From Alcuin: They follow Me—1. here, by walking in gentleness and innocence, 2. hereafter, by entering into the joys of eternal life.—From Zeller: Joh_10:27. Hear My voice; one may hear the words of the Lord without submitting to His voice; the voice of the Lord is the spiritually quickening influence of His words upon the heart.—From Burkitt: Joh_10:24. The subtlety of Christ’s enemies, expressing earnest desire for information that they might entrap.

Joh_10:25. The wisdom and caution of Jesus: He, 1. (refuses a direct answer, E. R. C.), 2. refers to His miracles.

Joh_10:26. The true cause of infidelity, 1. not obscurity of doctrine, but 2. not having the properties of Christ’s sheep.

Joh_10:27. All Christ’s sheep follow Him in His, 1. doctrine, 2. example.

Joh_10:28. Eternal life Isaiah , 1. the portion of Christ’s sheep, 2. the gift of Christ, 3. now given to the sheep, in (1) purchase, (2) promise, (3) first fruits.

Joh_10:32. Such was the perfect innocence of Christ that He dared appeal to the consciences of His most inveterate adversaries.—From Henry: If Wisdom’s sayings appear doubtful, the fault is not in the object, but in the eye.

Joh_10:24-25. The Jews pretended that they only doubted, Christ declared that they did not believe; skepticism in religion is no better than infidelity.

Joh_10:26. Ye are not of My sheep, i.e., ye are not 1. disposed to be My followers, 2. designed to be My followers.

Joh_10:27-29. Jesus described concerning His sheep, their—1. gracious disposition, they (1) hear His voice, (2) follow Him; 2. happy state, He (1) takes cognizance of them, (2) has provided happiness for them (a) eternal life, (b) freely bestowed, (3) has undertaken for their security and preservation.

Joh_10:37. Christ does not require a blind and implicit faith, nor an assent to His divine mission further than He gave proof of it.

Joh_10:39. The flight of Jesus, 1. not an inglorious retreat, but 2. a glorious retirement. He escaped, 1. not because He was afraid to suffer, but 2. because His hour was not come, Joh_8:30.

Joh_10:40. Though persecutors may drive Christ and His gospel out of their city, they cannot drive Him or it out of the world.

Joh_10:41. The result of John’s ministry after his death; the success of the word preached not confined to the life of the preacher.

Joh_10:42. Where the preaching of repentance has had success, there the preaching of gospel-grace is most likely to be prosperous.—From Barnes: Joh_10:29. It is implied that God will so control all other beings and things as that they shall be safe.

Joh_10:28-29. We are taught concerning Christians that—1. they are given by the Father to Christ, 2. Christ gives to them eternal life, i.e., (1) procures by His death and intercession, and (2) imparts by His Spirit, that religion which results in eternal life, 3. both the Father and the Son are pledged to keep them, 4. there is no power in man or devil to defeat Christ’s purpose.

Joh_10:39-42. The opposition of the wicked resulted in the increased success of the cause they persecuted.—From Ryle: Joh_10:26. “My sheep” indicates the close connection between Christ and believers; they are His, 1. by gift from the Father, 2. by purchase, 3. by choice and calling, 4. by their own consent.—Believers are called sheep, because they are, 1. helpless and dependent on their Shepherd, 2. harmless, 3. foolish and liable to go astray [?].

Joh_10:27. Christ knows His people with, 1. approbation, 2. interest, 3. affection.

Joh_10:28. Christ, 1. often withholds worldly prosperity, 2. never fails to give eternal life, i.e., (1) grace, (2) peace, (3) glory.

Joh_10:35. The high honor Christ puts on the Scriptures.

Joh_10:37-38. The importance Christ attached to His miracles.]

Footnotes:

[30]Joh_10:25.—[Tischend., Alf., etc., read οὐ πιστεὐετε instead of οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε.—P. S.]

[31]Joh_10:20.—Καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν probably erroneously considered a superfluous addition, on which account it is wanting in Codd., B. K. L., etc. [It is wanting also in Cod. Sin., omitted by Tischend., bracketed by Alford.—P. S.]

[32]Joh_10:29.—[The received text reads: ὁ πατήρ μου ὃς δέδεκέ μοι, μείζων ἐστιν, the Father who hath given (them) to me is greater than all; but the best authorities omit μου, and read ὅ for ὅς, and μεῖζον for μείζων. Tert.: Pater quod mihi dedit, majus est omnibus. So Tischendorf: ὁ πατὴρ ὁ δεδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζόν ἐστιν, that which the Father hath given me is greater than all. But this gives no good sense. The neuter μεῖζον was no doubt the original reading, but as transcribers did not understand it as belonging to πατήρ, they changed ὅς into the neuter. Restoring ὅς, we get the sense: “The Father (or, My Father, if we retain μου) who hath given (them) to me, is something greater (a greater power) than, all.” On the different readings see the apparatus in Tischend., ed. 8.—P. S.]

[33]Joh_10:33.—λέγοντες must be dropped in accordance with preponderant authorities. [λέγοντες is omitted in Sin., A. B. K. L., etc.; it occurs in D. e.g. H., etc.]

[34]Joh_10:38.—Meyer, in company with Lachmann and Tischendorf [Alford], prefers the reading: ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε [learn and know, or, know and understand], in accordance with B. L. X., supposing the γινώσκητε, on account of a failure to comprehend it, to have been changed into πιστεύστεύσητε [believe]. But manifestly the lect. recepta might at an earlier period have appeared strange to minds of the Alexandrian school. Yet its sense, notwithstanding the objections raised against it, is rich and pertinent.

[35]Joh_10:38.—Instead of ἐν αὐτῷ, B. D. L. [Sin.], etc., most versions, etc., read ἐν τῷ πατρί.

[36][The same view a new visit to Jerusalem to taken by Neander, Ebrard, Luthardt, Godet, Alford; while Meyer, Wieseler, Hengstenberg, Ewald and Owen assume that Jesus during the two months intervening between the feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication remained at or in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. The words ἐν τοῖς ̔Ιερουσ. favor Dr. Lange’s view and seem to indicate a previous absences from the city.—P. S.)

[37][The temple was soon to be profaned again and to be destroyed by the Romans. But Christ raised His own body, and with it the indestructible temple of the true worship of God. Hooker and Wordsworth infer from the feasts of Dedication and of Purim the lawfulness of appointing religious festivals by human authority.—P. S.]

[38][Wordsworth has a long note here on the supposed spiritual signification of this remark (χειμὼν ἦν) and the inner sympathy between the world of nature and the world of grace. But it is imposition rather than exposition.—P. S.]

[39][So Meyer: “The indication of this specific locality belongs to the traces of eye-witness-ship (Augenzeugenschaft), which impressed such events indelibly upon the memory of the author.” But he objects to the far-fetched view of Thiersch and Luthardt, that by walking in Solomon’s porch Christ intended symbolically to set forth the unity of the O. and N. covenant.—P. S.]

[40][“How grateful,” says Bengel, “would their approach have been to the Saviour, had they approached in faith.”—P. S.]

[41][So most commentators, referring to such passages as Joh_5:19; Joh_8:36; Joh_8:56; Joh_8:58; Joh_10:1, etc. Yet He did not expressly and directly reveal His Messiahship to the people, as He did to the Samaritan woman and to the blind man; the chief proof was His Messianic works, v. 36, and here.—P. S.]

[42][Joh_10:27-29 characterize the true sheep of Christ with a glorious promise as to their future, and draw a clear line of demarcation between His true disciples and the unbelieving and persecuting Jews, as well as all that are merely nominal Christians. 1. Subjective marks: (a) “They hear My voice;” the receptive side, faith, (b) “They follow Me;” the active side, love, obedience. 2. Objective marks: (a) “I know them;” this knowledge implies recognition of the sheep by Christ and corresponds to their faith. (b) I give unto them eternal life (δίδωμι, even now in this world). This life is eternal both intensively and extensively, and implies (aa) “that they shall never perish;” lit. “they shall not at all,” in wise οὐ μή, double negation) “perish for ever “(εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα); (bb) that “no one” (no wolf, no robber, no hireling, no enemy) “can tear them out of the hand,” (i.e. the possession and protecting power of Christ; for to tear them out of His hand Would be to tear them out of the hand of His Father, who is greater (μεῖζον, neuter, something greater, a greater power) than all (πάντων) the enemies and opposing forces, singly or combined; since Christ and the Father are one in power because they are one in essence (Joh_10:30), Reduced to a syllogism the argument is this: No one can tear My sheep from, the hand of My Father, God Almighty; I and My Father are one; consequently no one can tear them out of My hand. This is the strongest possible assurance of the faithfulness of Christ to His chosen followers and a protection on His part that will prevail over all opposition, including the devil and his host. We have no right to weaken the language by arbitrary insertions and qualifications in the interest of a particular system of theology or sect. It will not do for instance to exempt sin from the opposing forces (πάντων), for, as Hengstenberg in loc. well remarks, this would deprive Christ’s promise of its chief weight and comfort, since we require first of all a guarantee against ourselves; sin being our greatest enemy.—There is therefore a kind of election which implies the grace of perseverance to the end and which can in no way be defeated. This is taught not only here, but also in Joh_4:14; Joh_6:37; Joh_6:39-40; Joh_6:44-45; Joh_17:2; Joh_17:9-10; 1Jn_2:19; 1Jn_3:9; 1Jn_5:18; Rom_8:28-39; Eph_1:4 ff. Eph_1:13-14; 2Ti_2:13; 2Ti_2:19; 1Co_1:8-9, etc. On the other hand the Scriptures are full of exhortation and warning addressed to believers against the danger of unfaithfulness and apostasy (Heb_6:4 ff; Heb_10:35; Gal_5:4, etc.), which are strengthened by not a few examples (Adam and Eve, David, Solomon, Peter, etc.) The apparent contradiction between these passages involves the great problem of the relation of God’s sovereignty to man’s freedom, which we are unable fully to solve theoretically in our present limited state of knowledge. Practically there is no serious difficulty among true Christians, who are all agreed that their ultimate salvation depends entirely on the power and grace of God, and implies faithful perseverance on their part. Looking to Christ, we are perfectly safe, looking to ourselves, we are surrounded by danger. Genuine faith and trust in God always implies distrust in ourselves, but controls and overrules it by constant prayer and watchfulness. Paul puts both together, Php_2:12-13 : “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” Pious Lutherans and Methodists pray like Calvinists, as if all depended on God, and pious Calvinists work like Arminians, as if all depended on themselves. Theologically at war, they are devotionally agreed, and, forgetting the doctrinal antagonisms of their great hymnists in the days of their flesh, they unite all over the world in singing the hymns of Paul Gerhardt and Tersteegen, Toplady and Wesley, as if they had been of one creed. I discussed the question here involved more at length in my treatise on the Sin against the Holy Ghost (Halle, 1841) pp. 103–125. Alford and Wordsworth, perhaps from aversion to Calvinism, do not enter into an exegesis of this passage. Owen in loc. says: “The doctrine of the saints’ perseverance in holiness is here most expressly taught. If one of the elect should finally perish, it would not only falsify the declaration here made by Christ, but would be a violation of the compact between the Father and the Son (see Joh_6:37), and contrary to the expressly declared will of the Father (Joh_6:39-40). Yet this great truth, which so illustrates the sovereign mercy of God through Jesus Christ, and which is the only sure foundation upon which the believer rests his hope of eternal life, must not be abused to justify any laxity of effort on his part to make his calling and election sure, by a life of prayer and holy living, such as becometh the disciples of Christ.”—P. S.]

[43][Meyer understands ἕν ἐσμεν of the dynamic union, or union of power, and rejects both the Arian and Socinian interpretation of moral union, and the orthodox interpretation of essential union, but ho admits that, especially in the theological system of John, the essential union, the homoousia, though not required hero for the argument, is the presupposed basis of the dynamic union. See p. 409 f. (5th ed.)—P. S.]

[44][The best commentators (with the exception of Calvin who understands the passage de consensu cum Patre), support the interpretation given in the text, as the following quotations from different ages and churches will show. Euthymius Zigabenus: ἕν κατα δύναμιν, ἤγουν ταὐτοδύναμοι; εἰ δὲ έ̔ν κατὰ δύναμιν, ἕν αρα καὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα καὶ οὐσίαν καὶ φύσιν. Bengel: “Unum sumus non solum voluntatis consensu, sad unitate potentiæ, adeoque naturæ. Nam omnipotentia est attributum naturale.” Godet (II. 307): “Ce pluriel ‘Nous Sommes,’ ne serait-il pas un blasphéme dans la bouche d ‘une crtature? Le minislre d’ état qui se permit un jour de dire: Le roi et moi, nous … provoqua le rire de tout le Parlement; que mériterait la créature qui oserait dire: ‘Moi et Dieu nous.’…” Alford: “One in essence primarily, but therefore also one in working, and power and in will. This certainly is implied in the words, and so the Jews understood them, Joh_10:33.” Comp. also the long notes of Webster and Wilkinson, and Wordsworth in loc.—Two objections are raised against the orthodox interpretation: (1) The reply of Jesus, Joh_10:34-36; but this is evidently an argumentum a fortiori. See below. (2) The passages, Joh_18:11; Joh_18:21, where Christ applies the same language to the unity of believers among themselves and with Him: “that they may be one as we,” and “that they also in us may be one.” But the imperfection of the copy does not prove the imperfection of the original; and then the union of believers with Christ is really more than a moral union, it is a vital union, a community of life.godet (II. p. 307): “ L’ union de Jésus et des fidéles n ‘est point un simple accord de volonté, c ’est une action consubstantielle. L’incarnation a fondé entre Jésus et nous un rapport de nature tellement complet, qu’il embrasse notre personalité tout entiére, physique et morale.” Compare also Hengstenberg in loc.—P. S.]

[45][The patristic and scholastic terms περιχώρησις (from περιχωρέω, to circulate, to go about), ἐνύπαρξις, inexistentia, inhavitatio, intercommunio, circumincessio (also circuminsessio), are intended to express the reciprocal indwelling and vital communion to the Persons of the Trinity. The doctrine is based upon such passages as: “I am in the Father and the Father in Me;” “The Father that dwelleth in Me,” Joh_14:10-11.—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 22

JESUS, SON OF GOD.

And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: it was winter; and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomons porch. The Jews therefore came round about Him, and said unto Him, How long dost Thou hold us in suspense? If Thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in My Fathers name, these bear witness of Me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, which hath given them unto Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Fathers hand. I and the Father are one. The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me? The Jews answered Him, For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), say ye of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. 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. They sought again to take Him: and He went forth out of their hand. And He went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John was at the first baptizing; and there He abode. And many came unto Him; and they said, John indeed did no sign: but all things whatsoever John spake of this man were true. And many believed on Him there.- Joh_10:22-42.

After our Lords visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, and owing to His collision with the authorities in regard to the blind man whom He healed, He seems to have retired from the metropolis for some weeks, until the Feast of the Dedication. This Feast had been instituted by the Maccabees to celebrate the Purification of the Temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. It began about the 20th December, and lasted eight days. As it was winter, possibly raining, and certainly cold, Jesus walked about in Solomons Porch, where at all events He was under cover and had some shelter. Here the Jews gradually gathered, until at length He found Himself ringed round by hostile questioners, who bluntly, almost threateningly asked Him, How long dost Thou make us to doubt? If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly, a question which shows that, although they inferred from the assertions He had made regarding Himself that He claimed to be the Messiah, He had not directly and explicitly proclaimed Himself in terms no one could misunderstand.

At first sight their request seems fair and reasonable. In fact it is neither. The mere affirmation that He was the Christ would not have helped those whom His works and words had only prejudiced against Him. As He at once explained to them, He had made the affirmation in the only way possible, and their unbelief arose not from any want of explicitness on His part, but because they were not of His sheep (Joh_10:26). My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. Here, as elsewhere, He points in confirmation of His claim to the works His Father had given Him to do, and to the response His manifestation awakened in those who were hungering for truth and for God. Those who were given to Him by the Father, who were taught and led by God, acknowledged Him, and to such He imparted all those eternal and supreme blessings He was commissioned to bestow upon men.

But in describing the safety of those who believe in Him, Jesus uses an expression which gives umbrage to those who hear it-I and the Father are one. Those who trust themselves to Christ shall not be plucked out of His hand: they are eternally secure. The guarantee of this is, that those who thus trust in Him are given to Him by the Father for this very purpose of safe-keeping: the Father Himself therefore watches over and protects them. No man is able to pluck them out of My Fathers hand. I and My Father are one. In this matter Christ acts merely as the Fathers agent. The Pharisees might excommunicate the blind man and threaten him with penalties present and to come, but he is absolutely beyond their reach. Their threats are the pattering of hail on a bomb-proof shelter. The man is in Christs keeping, and thereby is in Gods keeping.

But this assertion the Jews at once construed into blasphemy, and took up stones to stone Him. With marvellous calmness Jesus arrests their murderous intention with the quiet question: Many good works have I showed you from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me? You question whether I am the Fathers Agent: does not the benignity of the works I have done prove Me such? Do not My works evince the indwelling power of the Father? The Jews reply, and from their point of view quite reasonably: For a good work we stone Thee not; but because Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God. How far they were justified in this charge we must inquire.

In this conversation two points are of the utmost significance.

1. The comparative equanimity with which they consider the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah is changed into fury when they imagine that He claims also equality with God. Their first appeal, If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly, is calm; and His answer, though it distinctly involved an affirmation that He was the Christ, was received without any violent demonstration of rage or of excitement. But their attitude towards Him changes in a moment and their calmness gives place to uncontrollable indignation as soon as it appears that He believes Himself to be one with the Father. They themselves would not have dreamed of putting such a question to Him: the idea of any man being equal with God was too abhorrent to the rigid monotheism of the Jewish mind. And when it dawned upon them that this was what Jesus claimed, they could do nothing but stop their ears and lift stones to end such blasphemy. No incident could more distinctly prove that the claim to be the Messiah was in their judgment one thing, the claim to be Divine another thing.

2. The contrast our Lord draws between Himself and those who had in Scripture been called gods is significant. It is the eighty-second Psalm He cites; and in it the judges of Israel are rebuked for abusing their office. It is of these unjust judges the psalm represents God as saying, I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. To these judges this word of God, Ye are gods, had come at their consecration to their office. Having been occupied with other work they were now set apart to represent to men the authority and justice of God. But, argues our Lord, if men were called gods, to whom Gods word came,-and they are so called in Scripture, which cannot be broken,-appointing them to their office, may He not rightly be called Son of God who is Himself sent to men; whose original and sole destiny it was to come into the world to represent the Father? The words are overweighted with manifold contrast. The judges were persons to whom the word of God came, as from without; Jesus was a person Himself sent into the world from God, therefore surely more akin to God than they were. The judges represented God by virtue of a commission received in the course of their career-the word of God came to them: Jesus, on the other hand, represented God because sanctified, that is, set apart or consecrated for this purpose before He came into the world, and therefore obviously occupying a higher and more important position than they. But, especially, the judges were appointed to discharge one limited and temporary function, for the discharge of which it was sufficient that they should know the law of God; whereas it was the Father, the God of universal relation and love, who consecrated Jesus and sent Him into the world, meaning now to reveal to men what lies deepest in His nature, His love, His fatherhood. The idea of the purpose for which Christ was sent into the world is indicated in the emphatic use of the Father. He was sent to do the works of the Father (Joh_10:37); to manifest to men the benignity, tenderness, compassion of the Father; to encourage them to believe that the Father, the Source of all life, was in their midst accessible to them. If Jesus failed to reveal the Father, He had no claim to make. If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if He did such works as declared the Father to be in their midst, then, as bearing the Father in Him and doing the Fathers will, He might well be called the Son of God. Though ye believe not Me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.

There can be no question, then, of the conclusiveness with which our Lord rebutted the charge of blasphemy. By a single sentence He put them in the position of presumptuously contradicting their own Scriptures. But weightier questions remain behind. Did Jesus merely seek to parry their thrust, or did He mean positively to affirm that He was God? His words do not carry a direct and explicit affirmation of His Divinity. Indeed, to a hearer His comparison of Himself with the judges would necessarily rather tend to veil the full meaning of His previous claims to pre-existence and superhuman dignity. On reflection, no doubt the hearers might see that a claim to Divinity was implied in His words; but even in the saying which first gave them offence, I and the Father are one, it is rather what is implied than what is expressed that carries with it such a claim. For Calvin is unquestionably right in maintaining that these words were not intended to affirm identity of substance with the Father.[36] An ambassador whose actions or claims were contested might very naturally say, I and my Sovereign are One; not meaning thereby to claim royal dignity, but meaning to assert that what he did, his Sovereign did; that his signature carried his Sovereigns guarantee, and that his pledges would be fulfilled by the entire resources of his Sovereign. And as Gods delegate, as the great Messianic Viceroy among men, it was no doubt this that our Lord wished in the first place to affirm, that He was the representative of God, doing His will, and backed by all His authority. See the Father in Me, was His constant demand. All His self-assertion and self-revelation were meant to reveal the Father.

But although He does not directly and explicitly say, I am God; although He does not even use such language of Himself as John uses, when he says, The Word was God; yet is not His Divine nature a reasonable inference from such affirmations as that which we are here considering? Some interpreters very decidedly maintain that when Christ says, I and the Father are one, He means one in power. They affirm that this assertion is made to prove that none of His sheep will be plucked out of His hand, and that this is secured because His Father is greater than all, and He and His Father are one. Accordingly they hold that neither the old orthodox interpretation nor the Arian is correct: not the orthodox, because not unity of essence but unity of power is meant; not the Arian, because something more is meant than moral harmony. This, however, is difficult to maintain, and it is safer to abide by Calvins interpretation, and believe that what Jesus means is that what He does will be confirmed by the Father. It is the Fathers power He introduces as the final guarantee, not His own power.

Still, although the very terms He here uses may not even by implication affirm His Divinity, it remains to be asked whether there are not parts of Christs work as Gods commissioner on earth which could be accomplished by no one who was not Himself Divine. An ambassador may recommend his offers and guarantees by affirming that his power and that of his Sovereign are one, but in many cases he must have actual power on the spot. If a commissioner is sent to reduce a mutinous army or a large warlike tribe in rebellion, or to define a frontier in the face of an armed claimant, he must in such cases be no mere lay-figure, whose uniform tells what country he belongs to, but he must be a man of audacity and resource, able to act for himself without telegraphing for orders, and he must be backed by sufficient military force on the spot. It comes therefore to be a question whether the work on which Christ was sent was a work which could be accomplished by a man however fully equipped? Jesus though nothing more than human might have said, if commissioned by God to say so, The promises I make, God will perform. The guarantees I give, God will respect. But is it possible that a man, however holy, however wise, however fully possessed by the Holy Spirit, could reveal the Father to men and adequately represent God? Could He influence, guide, and uplift individuals? Could He give life to men, could He assume the function of judging, could He bear the responsibility of being sole mediator between God and men? Must we not believe that for the work Christ came to do it was needful that He should be truly Divine?

While therefore it is quite true that Christ here rebuts the charge of blasphemy in His usual manner, not by directly affirming His Divine nature, but only by declaring that His office as Gods representative gave Him as just a claim to the Divine name as the judges had, this circumstance cannot lead us to doubt the Divine nature of Christ, or prompt us to suppose He Himself was shy in affirming it, because the question is at once suggested whether the office He assumed is not one which only a Divine Person could undertake. It need not stumble our faith, if we find that not only in this passage but everywhere Jesus refrains from explicitly saying: I am God. Not even among His Apostles, who were so much in need of instruction, does He definitely announce His Divinity. This is consistent with His entire method of teaching. He was not aggressive nor impatient. He sowed the seed, and knew that in time the blade would appear. He trusted more to the faith which slowly grew with the growth of the believers mind than to the immediate acceptance of verbal assertions. He allowed men gradually to find their own way to the right conclusions, guiding them, furnishing them with sufficient evidence, but always allowing the evidence to do its work, and not breaking in upon the natural process by His authoritative utterances. But when, as in Thomass case, it did dawn on the mind of any that this Person was God manifest in the flesh, He accepted the tribute paid. The acceptance of such a tribute proves Him Divine. No good man, whatever his function or commission on earth, could allow another to address him, as Thomas addressed Jesus, My Lord and my God.

In the paragraph we are considering a very needful reminder is given us that the Jews of our Lords time used the terms God and Son of God in a loose and inexact manner. Where the sense was not likely to be misunderstood, they did not scruple to apply these terms to officials and dignitaries. The angels they called sons of God; their own judges they called by the same name. The whole people considered collectively was called Gods son. And in the 2nd Psalm, speaking of the Messianic King, God says, Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee. It was therefore natural that the Jews should think of the Messiah not as properly Divine, but merely as being of such surpassing dignity as to be worthily though loosely called Son of God. No doubt there are passages in the Old Testament which intimate with sufficient clearness that the Messiah would be truly Divine: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; Unto us a Child is born ... and His name shall be called the Mighty God; Behold the days come that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and this is the name whereby He shall be called, Jehovah our Righteousness. But though these passages seem decisive to us, looking on the fulfilment of them in Christ, we must consider that the Jewish Bible did not lie on every table for consultation as our Bibles do, and also that it was easy for the Jews to put a figurative sense on all such passages.

In a word, it was a Messiah the Jews looked for, not the Son of God. They looked for one with Divine powers, the delegate of God, sent to accomplish His will and to establish His kingdom, the representative among them of the Divine presence; but they did not look for a real dwelling of a Divine Person among them. It is quite certain that the Jews of the second century thought it silly of the Christians to hold that the Christ pre-existed from eternity as God, and condescended to be born as man. No Jew would allow, says a writer of that time, that any prophet ever said that a Son of God would come; but what the Jews do say is that the Christ of God will come.

This circumstance, that the Jews did not expect the Messiah to be a Divine Person, throws light upon certain passages in the Gospels. When, for example, our Lord put the question, What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He? The Pharisees promptly answer, He is the Son of David. And, that they had no thought of ascribing to the Messiah a properly Divine origin, is shown by their inability to answer the further question, How then does David call Him Lord?-a question presenting no difficulty at all to any one who believed that the Messiah was to be Divine as well as human.[37]

So, too, if the Jews had expected the Messiah to be a Divine person, the ascription of Messianic dignity to one who was not the Messiah was blasphemy, being equivalent to ascribing Divinity to one who was not Divine. But in no case in which Jesus was acknowledged as the Messiah were those who so acknowledged Him proceeded against as blasphemous. The blind men who appealed to Him as the Son of David were told to be quiet; the crowd who hailed His entrance to Jerusalem scandalized the Pharisees but were not proceeded against. And even the blind beggar who owned Him was excommunicated by a special act passed for the emergency, which proves that the standing statute against blasphemy could not in such a case be enforced.

Again, this fact, that the Jews did not expect the Messiah to be strictly Divine, sheds light on the real ground of accusation against Jesus. So long as it was supposed that He merely claimed to be the promised Christ, and used the title Son of God as equivalent to a Messianic title, many of the people admitted His claim and were prepared to own Him. But when the Pharisees began to apprehend that He claimed to be the Son of God in a higher sense, they accused Him of blasphemy, and on this charge He was condemned. The account of His trial as given by Luke is most significant. He was tried in two courts, and in each upon two charges. When brought before the Sanhedrim He was first asked, Art Thou the Christ? a question which, as He at once pointed out, was useless; because He had taught quite openly, and there were hundreds who could testify to the claims He had put forward. He merely says that they themselves will one day own His claim. Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God. This suggests to them that His claim was to something more than they ordinarily considered to be involved in the claim to Messiahship, and at once they pass to their second question, Art Thou then the Son of God? And on His refusing to disown this title, the High Priest rends His clothes, and Jesus is there and then convicted of blasphemy.

The different significance of the two claims is brought out more distinctly in the trial before Pilate. At first Pilate treats Him as an amiable enthusiast who fancies Himself a King and supposes He has been sent into the world to lead men to the truth. And accordingly after examining Him he presents Him to the people as an innocent person, and makes light of their charge that He claims to be King of the Jews. On this the Jews with one voice cry out, We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God. The effect of this charge upon Pilate is immediate and remarkable: When Pilate heard that saying he was the more afraid, and went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art Thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

It is plain then that it was for blasphemy Christ was condemned; and not simply because He claimed to be the Messiah. But if this is so, then how can we evade the conclusion that He was in very truth a Divine person? The Jews charged Him with making Himself equal with God; and, if He was not equal with God, they were quite right in putting Him to death. Their law was express, that no matter what signs and wonders a man performed, if he used these to draw them from the worship of the true God he was to be put to death. They crucified Jesus on the ground that He was a blasphemer, and against this sentence He made no appeal. He showed no horror at the accusation, as any good man must have shown. He accepted the doom, and on the Cross prayed, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. That which they considered an act of piety was in truth the most frightful of crimes. But if He was not Divine, it was no crime at all, but a just punishment.

But no doubt that which lodges in the heart of each of us the conviction that Christ is Divine is the general aspect of His life, and the attitude He assumes towards men and towards God. We may not be able to understand in what sense there are Three Persons in the Godhead, and may be disposed with Calvin to wish that theological terms and distinctions had never become necessary.[38] We may be unable to understand how if Christ were a complete Person before the Incarnation, the humanity He assumed could also be complete and similar to our own. But notwithstanding such difficulties, which are the necessary result of our inability to comprehend the Divine nature, we are convinced, when we follow Christ through His life and listen to His own assertions, that there is in Him something unique and unapproached among men, that while He is one of us He yet looks at us also from the outside, from above. We feel that He is Master of all, that nothing in nature or in life can defeat Him; that while dwelling in time, He is also in Eternity, seeing before and after. The most stupendous claims He makes seem somehow justified; assertions which in other lips would be blasphemous are felt to be just and natural in His. It is felt that somehow, even if we cannot say how, God is in Him.

[36] Calvin says: The ancients misinterpreted this passage to prove that Christ is of one substance with the Father. For Christ is not here disputing regarding unity of substance, but regarding the harmony of will (consensu) which he has with the Father, maintaining that whatever He does will be confirmed by the Fathers power.

[37] In this passage I borrow the convincing argument of Treffry in his too little read treatise On the Eternal Sonship. He says, p. 89: Had the Jews regarded the Messiah as a Divine person, the claims of Jesus to that character had been in all cases equivalent to the assertion of His Deity. But there is not upon record one example in which any considerable emotion was manifested against these claims; while, on the other hand, a palpable allusion to His higher nature never failed to be instantly and most indignantly resented. The conclusion is obvious.

[38] Utinam quidem sepulta essent (Instit., I., 13, 5).

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

10:22 Hanukkah was a winter festival that commemorated the rededication of the Temple after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV (175–163 BC). Two hundred years before Christ, Greek soldiers captured and pillaged the Jerusalem Temple, took its treasures and artifacts, and made it unusable for worship. In the winter of 165–164 BC, a Jewish army led by Judas Maccabeus reclaimed the Temple and rededicated it to the Lord. The Festival of Hanukkah (“dedication”) marked this dedication (see 1 Maccabees 3–4; 2 Maccabees 8:1–10:8). During the festival, priests examined their commitment to service, using Ezek 34 as their principal text for reflection (also Jer 23:1-4; 25:32-38; Zech 11). At this Hanukkah celebration, Jesus used the shepherd theme from Ezek 34 to distinguish between himself as the good shepherd (John 10:11) and Israel’s current religious leaders as bad shepherds (10:10, 12-13).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 10:22. Ἐγκαίνια, Feast of Dedication) instituted by Judas Maccabæus: 1Ma 4:59. [He did not go up to Jerusalem purposely, for the sake of this ecclesiastical feast (as He had done on account of the other feasts, established by the Law), but He was present at it owing to circumstances. He did not remain long in Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover, mentioned Joh 2:3 : He remained a little longer after Pentecost, ch. 5; but, after He had accomplished His journey to the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. Joh 7:8, “I go not up yet unto this feast: for My time is not yet fully come”), in order that the end might crown the work with completion [in order to give the finishing stroke to His work], He in fine made a delay there longer than usual, from the Feast of Tabernacles beyond [so as to stay over] the Feast of Dedication.—Harm., p. 364.]

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_10:22-23. A new section; the proceedings at the feast of the Dedication of the Temple.

As there is not the least hint of a return journey to Galilee or Peraea, and as Joh_10:26 ff. point back to the discourse concerning the Good Shepherd, we must needs suppose that Jesus remained in Jerusalem and the neighbourhood between the feast of Tabernacles and the feast of Dedication (about two months), and did not labour outside of Judaea; He first leaves Judaea in Joh_10:30. Compare also Wieseler, p. 318; Ewald, Gesch. Christi, p. 471. The insertion here of a journey to Galilee or Peraea (as recently proposed, especially by Ebrard, Neander, Lange L. J. II. p. 1004 f., Riggenbach, Luthardt, Godet) is dictated by harmonistic presuppositions and clumsy combinations (suggested especially by the narrative of the journey in Luk_9:51 ff.), and not by the requirements of exegesis; for πάλιν in Joh_10:40 cannot be reckoned among such requirements.

τὰ ἐγκαίνια] the feast of Renewal, founded by Judas Maccabaeus, to commemorate the purification and consecration anew of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes, celebrated for eight days every year, from the 25th Kislev onwards (the middle of December), and especially distinguished by the illumination of the houses; hence also termed τὰ φῶτα. See 1Ma_4:50 ff.; 2Ma_1:18; 2Ma_10:6 ff.; Joseph. Antiq. 12:7. 7. From this festival (הַנוּכָה) sprang the Christian Church Dedication Festival, and its name ἐγκαίνια. See Augusti, Denkw. III. p. 316.

ἐν Ἱερουσ.] The celebration was not restricted to Jerusalem, but was universal (see Lightfoot, p. 1063 f.); the words ἐν Ἱερουσ. are added because Jesus was still there.

κ. χειμὼν ἦν] a remark added for the sake of Johns Gentile Christian readers, for whom the statement that it was winter when the festival occurred, would be sufficient to explain why Jesus walked about in Solomons porch and not in the open air; hence the explanation, stormy weather (Mat_16:3, so Er. Schmid, Clericus, Lampe, Semler, Kuinoel, Lange), is not in harmony with the context.

The στοὰ Σολομῶνος (comp. Act_3:11) was a portico on the eastern side of the temple buildings (hence denominated στ. ἀνατολική by Josephus in his Antt. 20:9. 7), which, according to Josephus, was a relic from Solomons days which had remained intact during the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. The mention of this particular part of the temple is one of the traces of the writer having himself been an eye-witness; events like this no doubt impressed themselves on the memory so as never to be forgotten (comp. Joh_8:20). Any reason for Jesus being in the porch, beyond the one given in the words καὶ χειμὼν ἦν (Luthardt, after Thiersch, Apost. Zeitalter, p. 73: for the purpose of expressing in a figurative way the unity of the Old and New Covenants), must be rejected as arbitrary, seeing that John himself gives no hint to that effect.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 10:22-39 . Sayings of Jesus at the Feast of Dedication .

Joh 10:22 . Ἐγένετο δὲ τὰ ἐγκαίνια . The ἐγκαίνια (Ezr 6:16 ) was the annual celebration of the reconsecration of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus after its defilement by Antiochus Epiphanes ( 1Ma 1:20-60 ; 1Ma 4:36-57 ). ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις . The feast might be celebrated elsewhere, and the place may be specified because Jesus had been absent from Jerusalem and now returned. χειμὼν ἦν , not “it was stormy weather” (Plummer) but “it was winter”; inserted for the sake of Gentile readers and to explain why Jesus was teaching under cover. The feast was held in December, the 25th, Chisleu. See Edersheim, Life of Jesus , ii. 226. καὶ περιεπάτει … Σολομῶντος [better Σολομῶνος ].

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22–38. THE DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF THE DEDICATION

Again we seem to have a gap in the narrative. Between Joh 10:21-22 (but see below) there is an interval of about two months; for the Feast of Tabernacles would be about the middle of October, and that of the Dedication towards the end of December. In this interval some would place Luk 10:1 to Luk 13:21. If this be correct, we may connect the sending out of the Seventy both with the Feast of Tabernacles and also with Joh 10:16. Seventy was the traditional number of the nations of the earth: and for the nations 70 bullocks were offered at the Feast of Tabernacles—13 on the first day, 12 on the second, 11 on the third, and so on. The Seventy were sent out to gather in the nations; for they were not forbidden, as the Twelve were, to go into the way of the Gentiles or to enter any city of the Samaritans (Mat 10:5). The Twelve were primarily for the twelve tribes; the Seventy for the Gentiles. The words ‘other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must lead,’ must have been spoken just before the mission of the Seventy.

Dr Westcott, on the strength of the strongly attested (B L 33 and the Thebaic and Armenian Versions) ἐγένετο τότε τὰ ἐγκ., At that time there took place the F. of the Dedication, would connect chaps. 9 and Joh 10:1-21 with this later Feast rather than with Tabernacles. In this case the interval of two months must be placed between chaps. 8 and 9

Is it possible that τὰ ἐγκαίνια here means the Dedication of Solomon’s Temple, which took place at the Feast of Tabernacles (1Ki 8:2; 2Ch 5:8)? If so, there is no gap in the narrative. Ἐγκαίνια is used in LXX. of the Dedication of the second Temple (Ezr 6:16), and ἐγκαινίζω is used of the first Temple (1Ki 8:63; 2Ch 7:5). At the Feast of Tabernacles some commemoration of the establishment of a permanent centre of national worship would be natural.

22. ἐγένετο δὲ τ. ἐγκ. This is the reading of א A D X and the bulk of MSS., with the Syriac and some old Latin texts: the best Latin texts have neither τότε nor δέ: the Memphitic gives both τότε and δέ. It is possible that -το δε produced τοτε. Now there took place at Jerusalem the Feast of the Dedication: see on Joh 2:13. The mention of a feast of so modern and local an origin and of ‘Solomon’s Porch’ indicate a Jewish writer familiar with Jerusalem. The vivid description (χειμών, περεπάτει, ἐκύκλωσαν, &c) and the firm grasp of the strained situation indicate an eyewitness. The Feast of Dedication might be celebrated anywhere, and the pointed insertion of ‘at Jerusalem’ seems to suggest that in the interval between Joh 10:21 and Joh 10:22 Christ had been away from the city. It was kept in honour of the purification and restoration of the Temple (B.C. 164) after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes; 1Ma 1:20-60; 1Ma 4:36-59 (note esp. 1Ma 4:36 and 1Ma 4:59); 2Ma 10:1-8. Another name for it was ‘the Lights,’ or ‘Feast of Lights,’ from the illuminations with which it was celebrated. Christian dedication festivals are its lineal descendants.

χειμὼν ἧν. For the asyndeton (the καί of T. R. is not genuine) comp. ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη (Joh 4:6, Joh 19:14). Perhaps χειμὼν ἦν to be connected with what follows rather than with what precedes: It was winter, and Jesus was walking, &c. Certainly the words explain why He was teaching under cover, and are not a mere note of time. We are in doubt whether they refer to the winter season (2Ti 4:21), or to the stormy weather (Mat 16:3; Act 27:20). The latter seems preferable. (1) The Feast of Dedication always began Kisleu 25th, i.e. late in December, so that there was no need to add ‘it was winter,’ although S. John might naturally state the fact for Gentile readers. (2) ἧν δὲ νύξ (Joh 13:30) is almost certainly added to symbolize the moral darkness into which the traitor went out. Perhaps here also χειμὼν ἧν is added as symbolical of the storm of doubt, passion and hostility in the midst of which Christ was teaching. see on Joh 18:1.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Third Section: 10:22-42. The Second Discourse.

In chap. Joh 7:19-24, we have seen Jesus return, in a discourse pronounced at the feast of Tabernacles, to the fact of the healing of the impotent man (chap. 5), and thus finish His justification of Himself which was begun at Jerusalem several months before (Joh 10:17-42), at the preceding feast. The same is the case here. In the second part of chap. Joh 10:22-42, He resumes the thread of the discourse pronounced after the cure of the man who was born blind, at the feast of Tabernacles, and thus completes the teaching begun in the previous visit. We have explained this mode of action (vol. I., p. 450). The exasperation of His adversaries in the capital not permitting Him to treat the questions in full, He takes them up with a new beginning at a succeeding visit.

The feast of the Dedication (Joh 10:22) was celebrated about the middle of December. Two months must therefore have elapsed between the feast of Tabernacles and this feast. Where did Jesus pass all this time? As no change of place is indicated and as, in Joh 10:42, Jesus is plainly again in Jerusalem, Hengstenberg, Meyer, Weiss, and others infer from this that Jesus remained during this whole period in the capital and its neighborhood; the last named, without hesitation, treat as a harmonistic expedient every opposite idea. But there is nothing less certain than the conclusion thus drawn from the silence of John. At the end of chap. 5 the evangelist does not in any way mention the return of Jesus to Galilee, and yet it is there that the Lord is found again in the beginning of chap. 6. Still more; there is nothing more improbable than so prolonged a sojourn of Jesus in Jerusalem or in its neighborhood at this time. Let us recall all the precautions which Jesus had been obliged to take, in order to repair to that city at the feast of Tabernacles, that He might give to this visit the character of a surprise. Why? Because, as is said in Joh 7:1, “Jesus would not go into Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.”

And yet in such a state of things, He could have remained two whole months peaceably in Jerusalem in the presence of the hostile party, and after the conflict had been still further aggravated by the violent scenes related in chaps. Joh 7:1 to Joh 10:21! Such a sojourn could only have determined the catastrophe before the time (Joh 7:6). This impossible supposition is, moreover, positively incompatible with John’s narrative. In the discourse in Joh 10:25-30, Jesus reproduces in substance that which He had pronounced after the cure of the man who was born blind; He even expressly cites it (Joh 10:26 : as I said to you). This fact implies that it was the first time that He found Himself face to face with the same hearers since the feast of Tabernacles, where He had used this allegory of the shepherd and the sheep. Finally, this supposition of a sojourn of two months in Judea between the feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication is certainly false, if the narrative of St. Luke is not a pure romance. Luke describes in the most circumstantial and dramatic way the departure of Jesus from Galilee, and His farewell to that province, in order to repair to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51 ff.). He shows how Jesus gave to this act the most striking notoriety by the solemn threatenings addressed to the cities where He had accomplished His ministry, and by the sending out of the seventy disciples, who should prepare His way in southern Galilee, as far as Peraea, that is to say, in all the country through which He was about to go to Jerusalem for the last Passover. How could this departure accomplished with such great publicity be identified with the journey to the feast of Tabernacles mentioned by John in chap. 7, a journey which, according to Joh 10:10, was made as it were in secret and which brought Jesus suddenly to Jerusalem?

It is to this, however, that the matter must resolve itself, if, after the journey in John 7, Jesus did not return to Galilee. Would it be true historic impartiality to condemn purely and simply one of the two narratives, when they can be so easily reconciled with each other! Jesus, after the feast of Tabernacles, returned to Galilee which He had left so suddenly, just as He had returned thither after the feast of Purim (end of chap. 5). He resumed His work there also for a certain time. Then (Luk 9:51 ff.) He called upon His adherents to sever the last bonds, in order to follow Him to Jerusalem; He sent before Him the seventy disciples, to the end of preparing by this means the last appeal which He desired Himself to address to the cities and villages of southern Galilee which had not yet been visited, and it was then that He pronounced the condemnation of the cities on the borders of the lake of Gennesareth, the constant witnesses of His ministry. This prolonged pilgrimage, the account of which fills nine chapters of the Gospel of Luke (Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:18), must have been interrupted, according to this same Gospel—a strange circumstances—by a brief journey to Jerusalem; for the story in Luk 10:38-42 (Jesus in the house of Martha and Mary) which is placed, one knows not how, in the midst of this journey, transfers the reader all at once to Bethany, and the parable of the Good Samaritan, which immediately precedes, seems also to be connected with a visit to Judea. What means this excursion to Jerusalem implied in the narrative of Luke, perhaps without a knowledge of it on his part (for he does not mention Bethany)? How is it possible not to be struck with the remarkable coincidence between this journey and the journey to the feast of the Dedication related by John? After this rapid excursion to Jerusalem, Jesus proceeds to resume His slow journeying in the south of Galilee; then He crosses the Jordan to go into Peraea, as is distinctly stated by Matthew and Mark. This sojourn in Peraea, a little while before the Passion, is the point where the four Gospel narratives meet together. Compare indeed Mat 19:1; Mar 10:1, and Luk 9:51; then Luk 18:15 ff., where the parallelism recommences between the narrative of this last writer and that of the other two Synoptics (the presentation of the young children, the coming up of the rich young man), and finally Joh 10:40-42. While following their own particular course, the four narratives are thus without difficulty harmonized.

The following passage includes an historical introduction (Joh 10:22-24), a first address of Jesus, in which He shows the Jews the moral separation which exists between them and Himself (Joh 10:25-31), and a last teaching by means of which He seeks yet once more to remove what was for them the great stumbling-stone, the accusation of blasphemy (Joh 10:32-39). The passage closes with the description of the sojourn in Peraea (Joh 10:40-42).

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 22-32.

1. The argument presented by Godet, as against Meyer, Weiss and others, seems satisfactory as showing that Jesus probably left Jerusalem and its neighborhood during the two months which intervened between the Feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication. That He did not remain in Jerusalem is certainly rendered probable by the fact that, in Joh 10:26-27, He refers to the discourse of Joh 10:1-18 as if this were the last one which had been given to the hearers. That He remained neither in the city nor its vicinity is probable, because of the danger connected with the increasing excitement against Him. In a narrative prepared, like John’s, on the principle of selection, and with separations of months between successive parts, the want of indication of a removal to a more distant region previous to Joh 10:40 can hardly be pressed as conclusive against an earlier removal.

2. Meyer calls attention to the designation of the particular part of the temple as indicating that the writer was an eye-witness. He also says that the verb ἐκύκλωσαν “graphically sets forth the urgency and obtrusiveness of the Jews,” but, apparently with correctness, he rejects the view which Godet holds, that they pressed in between Jesus and His disciples, and thus enclosed Him in their midst. There seems, at least, to be no sufficient reason for this view.

3. In the words of Joh 10:24 the Jews evidently call upon Jesus to declare Himself distinctly as to whether He is the Christ. It is proper to bear this demand in mind when considering the answer which He gives in the subsequent verses. This answer begins with the statement that He has already told them what He is. If there is a definite reference to a particular occasion here, it is, no doubt, to the discourses and conversations of chs. 8- Joh 10:18, in the closing part of which the allusion to the sheep (Joh 10:26-27) is found. Such a definite reference is probably to be admitted. After this He appeals to the testimony of His works, and then calls their attention to the same cause of their unbelief which He had given in the former discourse— they had not the susceptibility to the truth, they were not of His sheep. Following upon this, He declares that those who are His sheep have eternal life as His gift, and cannot be wrested from Him so as to lose it. It is in this way that He comes to the more complete statement of His Divine position than has been made at any previous time. The sheep, He says, cannot be taken from Him, because they are given Him by the Father, from whom, as being greater than all, they cannot be taken away; and then He adds, that He and the Father are one. This oneness is either oneness of being or of power—the latter idea is that of the immediate context, and seems to the writer of this note to be the one intended in this expression. But power is the central element of being, when the natural attributes are considered, and thus unity of power, when connected with the close relations between Jesus and the Father already indicated throughout the preceding part of the Gospel, implies unity of being. The Jews evidently understood this to be the meaning, as they did in Joh 5:18, for they plainly affirm it, and prepare to stone Him for blasphemy (Joh 10:31; Joh 10:33); and, on His part, He proceeds, as He did in ch. 5, to give a renewed statement of His claims and the evidence for them which they had themselves seen. He is in the Father, and the Father in Him, and this as connected with their oneness of power. He is thus the Son of God and is of the Divine nature. That in these latter statements there was no softening of His previous affirmations, or explaining away of His claims, is proved by the renewed act of hostility on the part of the Jews in Joh 10:39. To their demand, therefore, “If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly,” His final answer is, not merely, “I am the Christ,” but “I am one with the Father—He is in me and I am in Him.” As the evangelist says in His concluding words, Joh 20:31, and in his Prologue, Jesus is not only the Christ, but the Son of God, the incarnate Logos.

4. Weiss objects to the explanation of ἕν ἐσμεν as referring to unity of power, on the ground that this is the thing intended to be proved. But this does not seem to be the correct view—the thing to be proved is that, if no one can snatch the sheep out of the Father’s hand, it follows that no one can seize them out of Jesus’ hand, and the proof of this is the oneness of power. Westcott, on the other hand, agrees substantially with what has been said above on this point, and says: “The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, my Father’s hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power.”

Vv. 22-24. “Now they were celebrating the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem;it was winter. 23. And Jesus was walking about in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. 24. The Jews therefore surrounded him; and they said to him, How long wilt thou hold our minds in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.”

The feast of the Dedication (ἐγκαινία) was instituted by the Maccabees in remembrance of the purification of the temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 4.; Josephus, Antiq., 12.7.6). It continued eight days, following the 25th of Cisleu, which, if it was then the year 29 of our era, fell in that year, according to the work of M. Chavannes cited on page 42, on the 19th or 20th of December. It was called τὰ φῶτα, the lights, because of the brilliant illumination with which it was celebrated, not only at Jerusalem, but in the whole country. Jesus took advantage of it to address once more, before the Passover, a last appeal to His people. We may conclude from what precedes that He probably made this rapid journey to Jerusalem while the seventy disciples were accomplishing in Galilee the mission which He had intrusted to them, and were there preparing the way from place to place for His last appeal. We have seen that He had probably accomplished the journey at the feast of Purim (John 5) while the Twelve were fulfilling a similar mission in Galilee (vol. I., p. 453).

It was the unfavorable season of the year; and it was not possible to remain in the open air. Jesus, therefore, took his position in Solomon’s porch, an ancient peristyle situated in the eastern part of the court, above the valley of Jehoshaphat. It was the last remnant of the ancient temple. This place which had been rendered dear to the heart of the evangelist by the remembrance of the circumstance which he is about to relate, seems to have been equally sacred to the Christians of the primitive church of Jerusalem (Act 3:11). The nature of the place facilitated (therefore, Joh 10:24) the kind of manoeuvre which was executed at the moment by the Jews and which is described by the term ἐκύκλωσαν, they surrounded him. While Jesus was walking about in this peristyle, they took advantage of a favorable moment to place themselves between Him and His disciples and to force Him to speak. It appears to me that this must be the meaning of this strange expression: they surrounded Him in a circle. The scene of Joh 8:25 is renewed here in an intensified degree. They are weary of His answers which seem to them ambiguous. Some among them feel indeed that no man had ever so nearly approached the Messianic ideal. Let Him finally consent to play in earnest the part of the Messiah and to free the country from the Roman power, as formerly Judas Maccabaeus purified the temple from the Syrian profanations, and they will willingly hail Him, and that at this very festival; if not, let Him frankly avow that He is not the Messiah, and not continue to excite the expectation of the people! We thus picture to ourselves the general sentiment. Some, more ill-disposed, wished perhaps—this is the idea of Weiss —to extort from Him the term Christ, in order that they might accuse Him. The expression τὴν ψυχὴν αἴρειν, properly, to raise the mind, is applied to all lively emotions; see in the Greek tragic poets. Here it expresses the expectation which an activity like that of Jesus excited, an activity which awakened all the national hopes without ever satisfying them. Philo uses the term μετεωρίζειν in exactly the same sense.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 his garrison, 1 Macc. 4:59.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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 propri 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, Sol 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 (Ti2 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.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 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 neighbouring 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 Macc. 4:36, c. As Judas Maccabaeus not only restored the temple service, and cleansed it from pollution, c., but also repaired the ruins of it, the feast was called τα εγκαινια, the renovation.

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; Lu 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 Clarke on Joh 5:1.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. And it was the feast of Dedication. The Greek word (ἐγκαίνια) which we have translated dedication, 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(22) Between the last verse and this there is an interval of time which may be roughly taken as two months. Wieseler has calculated that the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles was on October 19, and the Feast of the Dedication on December 20. (See Chron. Synops., Eng. Trans., p. 435; and comp. Note on Joh_7:2, and Chronological Harmony of the Gospels, p. 35) In this interval we may with great probability place the events and teaching contained in Luk_10:1 to Luk_13:21, with the parallels in St. Matthew. (Comp. Note on Luk_10:1.) The connection suggests several points of interest:—

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Kg1 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 "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 "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 "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.

(a) Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 22. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 137. 2. (b) Hilchot Megilla Uchanucha, c. 3. sect. 2, 3. & 4. 1, 2. Vid. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 21. 2. (c) Antiqu. l. 12. c. 7. sect. 7. (d) Seder Tephillot, fol. 234. 1, 2. Ed. Amsterd. (e) T. Bab. Roshhashana, fol. 18. 2. (f) Hilchot Chanuca, c. 4. sect. 3. (g) De Repub. Heb. l. 3. c. 17. (h) Seder Tephillot, fol. 133. 2. (i) Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 22. 1. (k) History of the Rites, &c. of the Jews, c. 9. (l) Shalshelet Hakabala, fol. 17. 2. (m) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 34. fol. 30. 2. T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 106. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

Ver. 22. The feast of the dedication] viz. Of the temple newly purged from the pollutions of Antiochus, that little antichrist. Εγκαινια, initialia, sive renovalia. So when the Christian temple, the Church, was purged from the Popish abominations (called the tramplings of the Gentiles, Rev 11:2), by those two witnesses, that is, by Luther and other heroical reformers, there was great joy among God’s people. And in the year 1617, as the pope proclaimed a jubilee for the peace of Italy and Austria, &c., so the reformed Churches in Germany did the same, for God’s mercy in restoring to them the gospel, just a hundred years before: for in the year 1517, Luther began to decry the pope’s indulgences. (Bucholcer.) In like sort, at the same time, when the Greeks were busy in their Olympic games, the prophet Isaiah saw that glorious vision of God in his majesty, Isa 6:1-2 (as the divine chronologer observes it), singing with seraphims, that sweetest trisagion, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts." The new Jerusalem, which signifies the state of the Church in this world (saith Rev. Dr Sibbs), when it shall be refined to the utmost, is all of fine gold and precious stones, &c., to show the excellence of reformation; which golden times are yet to come, and will prove very festival.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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, 2Ma 2:23; 10:6-8; 1Ma 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 22-42. 6. The oneness of Christ with the Father. The discourse at the Feast of Dedication, with its results.

Vers. 22-26. (1) The Feast of Dedication, and the excitement of the people. The paragraph is pregnant with meaning, arising from the place, the time, and the action of the Jews. It contains the discrimination between the Jews and those who were in spiritual union with himself, viz. his sheep. Then follow the characteristics and privileges of his sheep, which lead up to the climax in which he risks the deadly animosity of his hearers, by claiming identity of saving power with the Father. tic accounts for this by asserting what is expressive of positive consubstantiality with the Father. On any exegesis, this solemn announcement is a stupendous assumption of personal dignity, and was regarded by his hearers as blasphemous madness.

Now, the Feast of Dedication (the enkainia) was (celebrated) in Jerusalem. This feast is not elsewhere noticed in the New Testament. The account of its origin is found in RAPC 1Ma 4:36, etc.; RAPC 2Ma 10:1-8; Josephus, "Ant.," 12:7. 7. And it was winter. It was held on the 25th of Chisleu, which, in A.D. 29, would correspond with the 19th of December, in commemoration of the "renewal," reconsecration, of the temple by Judas Maccabaeus after the gross profanation of it by Antiochus Epiphanes. (RAPC 1Ma 1:20-60 4:36-57) It occupied eight days, was distinguished by illumination of the city and temple and of other places throughout the land, and hence was called the "Feast of Lights." Many interesting peculiarities of this feast are detailed in Edersheim"s "Life of Jesus," 2:228, etc. One feature was the increase night by night of the number of lights which commemorated the restoration of the temple. All fasting and public mourning were prohibited (see "Moed. K.," 3:9). The high enthusiasm of the people made them long for deliverance from the Roman yoke. The Jews would probably have eagerly accepted Jesus as Messiah if he had been ready to take up the role of a political leader. Doubtless he was the Christ of the Hebrew prophecies, and in his own human consciousness his high position swelled his loftiest thought; but he was not the Christ of their Jewish expectation.

Vers. 22-31. Another visit to Jerusalem and another address.

Jesus left the city for two months, and, after ministering in Pereea, returned for the Feast of Dedication, which commemorated the purification of the temple, in the time of the Maccabees, from the profanation of Antiochus Epiphanes. It was held in December, and "Jesus was walking in Solomon"s porch," a sheltered arcade for such a season.

I THE FRESH APPEAL OF THE JEWS FOR AN UNAMBIGUOUS DECLARATION OF THE MESSIAHSHIP. "How long wilt thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

1. They encircled him by closing in around him, so as to enforce a categorical answer to their question.

2. They seemed to be weary of answers ambiguous in their eyes, because they had not eyes to see their meaning, and demanded an answer without reserve and without fear.

3. The Maccabean tradition brought so vividly before their minds by the least suggested the bare possibility of Jesus being such a temporal Messiah as they looked/or, possessing as he undoubtedly did a marvelous power over nature and man.

II OUR LORD"S FIRST ANSWER TO THEIR APPEAL. "I told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father"s Name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.

1. A direct answer would have been impossible. If he had said, "I am the Messiah," he would have led them to believe that he was the temporal Prince of their false conceptions. If he had said, "I am not the Messiah," he would have uttered falsehood, for he was the Messiah promised by God.

2. He recurs to those significant testimonies by which he had applied to himself all the Messianic symbols of the old dispensation.

3. He adds the weighty testimony of his Father works of the Father as signifying his oneness with the Father.

4. His words, Ye are not of my sheep," signify that he was not such a Messiah as they desired.

III THE BLESSED PRIVILEGES ATTACHED TO THE RELATION BETWEEN CHRIST AND HIS SHEEP. Our Lord asserts in parallel clauses the acts of the sheep and the acts or gifts of the Shepherd.

1. The acts of the sheep.

(1) "My sheep hear my voice." They hear with both ear and heart. Their faith came by "hearing.

(2) "And they follow me," both in the exercise of grace and in the discharge of duty.

(3) "They shall never perish." Their salvation is sure.

2. The acts or gifts of the Shepherd.

(1) "I know them," with the knowledge of a Divine fellowship.

(2) "I give unto them eternal life.

(a) He gives himself, who is that "Eternal Life". (1Jn_1:1)

(b) He gives the knowledge of himself, which is life eternal. (Joh_17:2)

(c) It is a present gift.

(d) It is a pure gift of grace, not works.

(3) "Neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.

(a) The sheep are placed in Christ"s hands by the Father; for they are "the sheep of his hand". (Psa_95:7)

(b) The power, the wisdom, the love of Jesus secure the final salvation of his sheep.

IV THE ABSOLUTE SECURITY OF THE SHEEP AND ITS TRUE GROUND. "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father"s hand. I and my Father are one.

1. The safety of the believer is guaranteed by the power of the Father as well as that of the Son.

2. The oneness of Father and Son, not merely in will or power, but in nature, is the supreme guarantee of all salvations, which is the common work of Father and Son.

V THE EFFECT OF THIS DECLARATION UPON THE JEWS. "Then the Jews brought stones again to stone him.

1. This act of sudden rage implied that they understood our Lord to claim supreme Deity.

2. The stones had been previously carried to the porch, in the expectation that the sacrifice of Christ could not be much longer delayed.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It was the feast of the dedication - 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?

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Christ’s Sermon at the Feast of Dedication.

The testimony of Jesus concerning Himself:

v. 22. And it was at Jerusalem, the Feast of the Dedication, and it was winter.

v. 23. And Jesus walked in the Temple in Solomon’s Porch.

v. 24. Then came the Jews round about Him, and said unto Him, How long dost Thou make us to doubt? If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

v. 25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not; the works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.

v. 26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you.

v. 27. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

v. 28. and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand.

v. 29. My Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand.

v. 30. I and My Father are one.

There is an interval of about two months between this story and the one just preceding it. The Festival of the Dedication had been celebrated since the time of the Maccabees in commemoration of the reconsecration of the Temple after its defilement by Antiochus Epiphanes. Its date was the 25th

of Chisleu (December). Jesus had either remained at Jerusalem, or, what is more probable, had spent the intervening time in Perea, a favorite place for retirement. At this time He was in the Temple, walking about or up and down in the splendid portico or cloistered hall which bore Solomon’s name. He was soon recognized by the Jews, many of whom had been present at His last discourse and now took occasion to put a question to Him about which there had probably been much discussion since they had seen Him last. They surrounded Him, thus preventing His moving onward. With an almost menacing attitude they put their question: How long dost Thou keep our souls in uncertainty? Their meaning is that they have not yet received sufficient testimony one way or the other to enable them to judge properly. They demanded a plain, unequivocal statement. Jesus reminded them of the fact that He had given them the truth concerning Himself, that not only His words, but also His actions, His miracles, bore testimony of Him. All these things should have convinced them long ago that He was the Christ. It was their unbelief that stood in their way, and this unbelief, in turn, proved that they did not belong to His sheep. Their unbelief in the face of such overwhelming testimony was their own fault. For of His sheep, of the believers in Him, it was true that they heard His voice, as He had explained to them upon a former occasion. With His believers Jesus has entered into a close communion; He responds to their every need. And above all, He, as the Savior and powerful God, gives to them the life everlasting which He has earned for them by His atoning work. No enemy in the world or elsewhere can rob them, can tear them away from Christ by any force. He has them firmly by the hand, He holds them safely in His hand, and therefore they shall never be lost. The Lord here, as one commentator has it, gives us a guarantee against ourselves, against our own weakness and doubt. There are so many factors which tend to stifle faith in our hearts, to make us doubt the sincerity of God’s promises toward us, but this word of Christ must overcome all doubt most effectually and definitely. Unless the believers maliciously reject their Savior and trample upon the salvation earned for them, there can be no doubt of His holding them in His hand. If we but trust in His loving mercy and kindness, there shall nothing harm us or tear us away from His side. And this fact He emphasizes still more strongly by stating that the believers are given Him by His Father, who is greater and mightier than all; what enemy will tear them out of His Father’s hands? God has given these sheep, these believers, to His Son, in order that they should be saved, and so they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, 1Pe 1:6. And Jesus and His Father are one. There are two different persons, but only one essence. The will of the Son will never oppose the will of the Father. The Son is God just like the Father, and in the same degree as the Father. And from this it follows that the Father and the Son work together in this great work of saving men, of keeping the believers safe until the end. Note: This glorious, comforting passage is of such beauty and power that it should be memorized by every Christian or use against the wily attacks of the devil and his allies. We are safe in the hands of our heavenly Father and of Jesus Christ. His Son, our Savior.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This feast was not of divine, but human institution; it was appointed by Judas Maccabeus, and continued eight days, as an anniversary commemoration for the repairing of the temple. Now our Saviour was so far from reproving the Jews for observing this feast, which was of human institution, that he graced the solemnity with his own presence.

Hence observe, That our Saviour held communion with the Jewish church, and did, without scruple, conform himself to the observation of their rites and customs, although they were not originally of divine institution.

Learn, 2. That such a christian as doth peaceably comply with the practice of the church, in whose communion he lives, in the observation of those different rites and customs which are used by her, acts most agreeably to our Saviour’s practice and example.

Who can with any shew of reason censure Christians for observing the feast of dedication?

Certainly no person of sober principles ever questioned, but that ecclesiastical rulers and civil magistrates have a power to appoint public days of thanksgiving yearly; for the commemoration of mercies, which ought never to be forgotten.

From our Saviour’s presence at this feast, Grotius well notes, That festival days, in memorial of public blessings, may piously be instituted by person in authority, without a divine command.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [LXXXVIII. The Feast of Dedication].

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 i 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]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. It was … the feast of dedication. Two months after the last incidents, which occurred at and shortly after the Feast of Tabernacles. The Feast of Dedication occurred in December, was not divinely appointed, but was instituted by Judas Maccabæus in b.c. 164, to commemorate the purification of the temple after it had been defiled by the Syrians. Jesus took the occasion to teach the people that came together. There is no proof that he observed it.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

During the Festival of Dedication, some Jews begin to question Jesus. Verses 22 and 23 give background information about the setting of the story. (See: Background Information)

Festival of the Dedication

This is an eight-day, winter holiday Jews use to remember a miracle where God made a small amount of oil remain lit in a lampstand for eight days. They lit the lampstand to dedicate the Jewish temple to God. To dedicate something is to promise to use it for a special purpose.

Jesus was walking in the temple

The area where Jesus was walking was actually a courtyard that was outside the temple building. AT: "Jesus was walking in the temple courtyard" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

porch

This is a structure attached to the entrance of a building; it has a roof and it may or may not have walls.

Then the Jews surrounded him

Here "Jews" is a synecdoche for the Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus. AT: "Then the Jewish leaders surrounded him" (See: Synecdoche)

hold us doubting

This is an idiom. AT: "keep us wondering" or "keep us from knowing for sure?" (See: Idiom)

translationWords

festival

Jerusalem

temple

Solomon

Christ

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

22-39.] Discourse at the Feast of Dedication. It may be, that Jesus remained at, or in the neighbourhood of, Jerusalem during the interval (two months) between the Feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication. Had He returned to Galilee, we should have expected some mention of it. Still, by the words ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις, it would seem as if a fresh period and a new visit began; for why should such a specification be made, if the narrative proceeded continuously? See on Luk 9:51 ff.

22.] This feast had become usual since the time when Judas Maccabæus purified the temple from the profanations of Antiochus. It was held on Chisleu (December) 25, and seven following days: see 1 Macc. 4:41-59: 2 Macc. 10:1-8: Jos. Antt. xii. 7. 7.

χειμ. ἦν] it was winter (not ‘stormy weather,’ as Lampe, .: Mat 16:3): see above. The notice is inserted to explain to Gentile readers the reason of our Lord’s walking in Solomon’s portico. This latter was on the east side of the temple, called also by Jos. στοὰ ἀνατολική. He says, Antt. xx. 9. 7, that it was an original work of Solomon, which had remained from the former temple.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. ἐγένετο τότε τὰ ἐνκαίνια ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις. τότε is read by BLW, but it has been replaced by δέ in אADΘ and the rec. text. τότε is not common in Jn., and indicates here that some time had elapsed since the last date mentioned, viz. the Feast of Tabernacles (7:37). Chapters 8 and 9 describe a period of continual controversy with the Pharisees, which was brought to a head by the healing of the blind man and the claims subsequently made by Jesus. The Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated about the month of October, and it was now December. Jn. is forward to give dates when he can (see Introd., p. cii).

The Feast of the Dedication (חֲנוּבִה, “Renewal”) was instituted by Judas Maccabæus to commemorate the purification of the Temple from the pollutions of Antiochus Epiphanes by the dedication of a new altar (1 Macc. 4:36, 59, 2 Macc. 10:5, 6), and was kept at the winter solstice (Chislev, 25); and during the following week Josephus notes that it was customary to light the lamps on the “candlestick” as a mark of rejoicing, and that the Feast was sometimes called τὰ φῶτα (Antt. XII. vii. 6). The ceremonial was similar to that of Tabernacles (2 Macc. 10:6), the idea of light being conspicuous in both festivals. Hence the words “I am the Light of the World” (8:12, 9:5) would have been equally illustrated by the ritual of Tabernacles or of Dedication.

It was not a matter of obligation to attend at Jerusalem for the Feast of τὰ ἐνκαίνια, which might be observed elsewhere; and Jesus is not represented by Jn. as “going up” to Jerusalem for it. It happened that the season of the Dedication came on while He was there, and, as Jn. notes, it was winter.

Ἱεροσολύμοις. ABLWΘ prefix τοῖς, which אDΓΔ omit. Jn. usually omits the article before Ἱεροσόλυμα (see on 2:23; and cf. 1:19).

χειμὼν ἦν. The rec. prefixes καί, but om. אBDLWΘ.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Feast of the dedication [εγκαινια] . Only here in the New Testament. The word signifies renewal, from kainov, new, fresh.

Josephus calls it fwta, 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. 3, 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 mere 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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.