Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:22

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:22” utilice nuestra app.

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

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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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 Solomons porch.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

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 , the renovation.

It was winter.] , 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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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 Gods 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 Mosess punctual obedience to that command, Lev 8:1-36. When the temple was built by Solomon, we read of Solomons dedication of it; but nothing of ceremony used at it, only a multitude of sacrifices offered, (which was Gods 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, Solomons 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 Solomons dedication was in autumn; Ezras 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 bishops 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 peoples 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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

22, 23. it was . . . the feast ofthe dedicationcelebrated rather more than two monthsafter the feast of tabernacles, during which intermediate period ourLord seems to have remained in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. It wasinstituted by Jude Maccabeus, to commemorate the purification of thetemple from the profanations to which it had been subjected byAntiochus 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 (1Maccabees 4:52,56,59; and JOSEPHUS,Antiquities, 7.7.7).

it was winterimplyingsome inclemency. Therefore,

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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

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

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

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

“when the Israelites prevailed over their enemies and destroyed them, it was on the twenty fifth of the month Chisleu; and they went into the temple and could not find any pure oil in the sanctuary, but one vial; and it was not enough to light but one day only, and they lighted lamps of it for eight days, until the olives were squeezed, and they brought forth pure oil: wherefore the wise men of that generation ordered, that those eight days beginning at the twenty fifth of Chisleu, should be days of rejoicing and praise, and they lighted lamps at the doors of their houses; every night of these eight nights, to show and make known the miracle; and these days are called

“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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Christ’s Conference with the Jews.

22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 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. 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. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 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, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 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. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my 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. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your 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 hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

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 Maccabus, 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 Mac. i. 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, Esth. ix. 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 (v. 23): Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch; so called (Acts iii. 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 (Ps. lxxxii. 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, v. 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. Ten psychen hemon 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,” ch. i. 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, ch. viii. 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, c. 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, Prov. xxii. 14. Non esse electum, non est causa incredulitatis propri dicta, sed causa per accidens. Fides autem est donum Dei et effectus prdestinationis–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 (v. 27), for they know it to be his (v. 4), and he has undertaken that they shall hear it, v. 16. They discern it, It is the voice of my beloved, Cant. ii. 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, Ps. lviii. 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 (2 Tim. ii. 19), has a particular regard to every individual (Ps. xxxiv. 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, v. 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, ch. xvii. 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, Deut. xxxiii. 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, v. 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 (v. 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, v. 31. It is not the word that is used before (ch. viii. 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 (ch. viii. 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 (v. 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 prclara; 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, ch. xviii. 20. See Ps. cxi. 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 xix. 28.

VI. Their vindication of the attempt they made upon Christ, and the cause upon which they grounded their prosecution, v. 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. v.) and the blind man (ch. ix.) 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, ch. xi. 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. xxiv. 16. This law, they thought, did not only justify, but sanctify, what they attempted, as Acts xxvi. 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 (v. 34, c.), 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 (Ps. lxxxii. 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 (v. 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, Exod. xxii. 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, Matt. v. 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 (v. 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, ch. vi. 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, Luke i. 35. See Rom. i. 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. i. 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 (v. 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.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem ( ). But Westcott and Hort read (then) instead of (and) on the authority of B L W 33 and some versions. This is probably correct: “At that time came the feast of dedication in Jerusalem.” does not mean that the preceding events followed immediately after the incidents in 10:1-21. Bernard brings chapter 9 up to this date (possibly also chapter 8) and rearranges chapter 10 in a purely arbitrary way. There is no real reason for this arrangement. Clearly there is a considerable lapse between the events in 10:22-39 and 10:1-21, possibly nearly three months (from just after tabernacles 7:37 to dedication 10:22). The Pharisees greet his return with the same desire to catch him. This feast of dedication, celebrated for eight days about the middle of our December, was instituted by Judas Maccabeus B.C. 164 in commemoration of the cleansing of the temple from the defilements of pagan worship by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Macc. 4:59). The word (, , new) occurs here only in the N.T. It was not one of the great feasts and could be observed elsewhere without coming to Jerusalem. Jesus had apparently spent the time between tabernacles and dedication in Judea (Lu 10:1-13:21).

Winter (). Old word from (, to pour, rain, or from , snow). See Mt 24:20.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Feast of the dedication [] . 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.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,” (egeneto tote ta egkainia en tois lerosolumois) “There was (occurred) then the dedication in Jerusalem,” the feast of dedication, or annual re-consecration of the temple, Ezr 6:16. This was some two months after the account previously related, at the healing of the blind man, Joh 9:1-41. This temple re-consecration recalled the renewal by Judaeus Maccabaeus (167 BC), after its pollution by Antiochus Epiphanes, when he offered a sow on the altar and made fun of it and its sacred services.

2) “And it was winter.” (cheimon hen) “It was winter,” and this is why Jesus was teaching inside, Joh 10:23, rather than outside and it was also likely stormy weather. It was on the 18th day of December of our calendar year and lasted for eight days, Antiq. of Josephus, 12:7,9.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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

(298) “ Le mot Grec pour lequel nous avons mis Dedicace.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

Joh. 10:22-38. Our Lords utterances at the feast of dedication on His oneness with the Father, etc.This feast ( the Encnia) was post-exilic in its origin. It commemorated the re-dedication of the temple and the renewing of the altar by Judas Maccabus after their profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. It was also called , 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 122 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. Solomons porch.Or the portico of Solomon (vide also Act. 3:11; Act. 5:12). That which was really Solomons 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)?( , 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 Lords 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 Encnia without sighing in their secret hearts, and murmuring to one another, Would that a new Judas Maccabus (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. ( ).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 Saviours 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. .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. .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 (), signifies here the Old Testament generallythe 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 lawthe law by which you consider yourselves boundthose 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 propheticthis, as a word of Scripture, they were constrained to hold inviolable; while in His case, who is essentially Gods consecrated One and Gods Messenger, the Mediator of His perfected revelation, to whom the Father has Himself given consecration and office in its most essential formin 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.Pera. 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 Juda and beyond the Jordan. St. Mark, in this succinct notice, comprises the two journeysthat to Jerusalem at the feast of dedication, and this to Pera. 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 Jewsa 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 Christs 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 flocketernal 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, Christs 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 aroundthere were building operations proceeding on the yet unfinished templeand 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 Christs 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 Saviours 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 Christs 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 worlds 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 Shepherds hands will hold us with invulnerable might when we are thus united with Him.

II. The ground of the believers 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 Christs 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 Sons hand they are also in the Fathers.

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, backslidingthese 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 Christs recognition of mans 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 believers 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 Christianit would almost seem as if they meant thisshould never attain to full spiritual freedom, in case he should no longer feel the need ofshould, indeed, feel independent ofthe manifold and often repeated means of help provided by the Church.Thiersch, in Bessers 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.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CLAIMS TO DEITY

Text 10:22-31

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 me 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, who 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.

Queries

Why the inferences of a particular season (Joh. 10:22-23)?

Why did the Jews say, . . . tell us plainly?

Is Jesus declaring eternal security in Joh. 10:28-29?

Paraphrase

And the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple was in progress at Jerusalem. It was winter-time and Jesus was walking in the temple in the colonnade which is called Solomons Porch. So the Jews encircled Him and demanded, How much longer are you going to keep us hanging in suspense? If you really are the Messiah, tell us so in plain words! Jesus answered them, I told you before and you do not believe. The miraculous works that I do in My Fathers name bear sufficient testimony to prove my Messiahship. However, you do not believe because you are not willing to surrender to the implications of these works and become my obedient sheep. My sheep hear and obey my voice and I, in turn, recognize them as my own. My sheep follow me wherever I lead them, and I give them eternal life now. Furthermore, they will never, never lose this life for all eternity for no one is able to snatch them from the safety of my hand. My Father and I are equal; He gave me the sheep and He is certainly greater than all the enemies of the sheepno one is able to snatch them from His hand. I and the Father are One!
At this declaration the Jews ran and picked up stones carrying them to Solomons Porch to stone Jesus to death.

Summary

The hostile Jews demand an unequivocal statement from Jesus as to His Messiahship. He states plainly that He and the Father are One, especially in omnipotence. The Jews, unwilling to have a Messiah who is God in the flesh, prepare to kill Him. The awfulness of unbelief!

Comment

This section (Joh. 10:22-31) takes us from the Feast of Tabernacles (September) to the Feast of Dedication (December). Three months of the ministry of Jesus is omitted by John between Joh. 10:21 and Joh. 10:22, but recorded by the Synoptics (cf. Map #5, Joh. 7:1-53 chapter comments). The Feast of Dedication came on the 25th of Chisleu (December). This is the beginning of winter in Jerusalem. The weather is stormy, with the rainy season well under way; snow has been known to fall on the mountain-tops of Judea at this time of the year. The seasonal note of Joh. 10:2 with the accompanying phrase picturing Jesus walking under the protection of the roof of Solomons porch is very graphic.

The Feast of Dedication was founded on this wise: Upon the death of Alexander the Great, his Grecian world empire was divided three ways. Seleucus I, one of Alexanders army officers, obtained the satrapy of Babylonia. By later conquests, he became the ruler of Syria and the greater part of Asia Minor and founded the Seleucid era which lasted from about 312 B.C. to 65 B.C. (when Pompey reduced the kingdom of Syria to a Roman province).
During the era of the Seleucid rulers, one Antiochus Ephiphanes came to the throne at a time (175164 B.C.) when all the Near East was under Seleucid rule. Antiochus Ephiphanes was a lover and devotee of Greek culture and very passionately so. He made up his mind that he would do away with Jewish religion and culture for good and introduce Greek culture and religion into Palestine. Some of the Jews welcomed Hellenization, but others were so patriotic and faithful to the Hebrew religion that many forfeited their lives in resistance. This great struggle, incidentally, gave birth to the sect of the Pharisees (also known as Separatists) who were men dedicated by vows to resist any heathen encroachment upon the Hebrew customs and religion. At first Antiochus tried to introduce his cultural renovation by peaceful methods, but found the resistance too strong. In 170 B.C., Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and it is said that 80,000 Jews perished and almost as many were taken away into slavery. About $2,000,000 was stolen from the temple treasury. It became a capital offense to possess a copy of the Hebrew law, or to circumcise a child; and mothers who did circumcise their children were crucified with their children hanging around their necks. The temple courts were profaned with heathen intrusions; the temple chambers were turned into brothels; and the ultimate insult was when Antiochus ordered a sow (swine) sacrificed upon the altar of burnt offering in the temple of the Jews. This was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak, and Judas Maccabaeus, with his brothers and an outnumbered and ill-equipped, but courageous army, arose to fight a war of six long, bloody years for independence. In 164 B.C., the first time for about 400 years, the Jews were an independent kingdom. In this year the Temple was cleansed and purified of all heathen defilements, The altar was rebuilt; the robes and the utensils which had been stolen were replaced. The Temple was re-dedicated! It was to commemorate this re-dedication that the Feast of Dedication was instituted. 1Ma. 4:59 reads, . . . the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year, by the space of eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Chisleu, with gladness and joy. Most historians point out the close similarity in the ritual of this feast with the Feast of Tabernacles (lighting of the great candleabra, singing of the Hallel, etc.).

There is a great nationalistic heritage connected with this festival. Furthermore, it was recent enough in Jewish history at Jesus time to be extremely significant. Time and events in Jesus day were pregnant with meaning. Many of the elders of the Jews could remember in their own lifetime the last days of the Maccabean freedomthen came the Roman oppression and domination. Then there came among the Jews a John the Baptist preaching repentance for the kingdom of God is near at hand; following him comes a miracle-working Nazarene claiming to be the Messiah.

Therefore, the intenseness of the challenge by the Jews in Joh. 10:24 is not difficult to understand. Political freedom and social reform is uppermost in their minds as they participate in this Feast of Dedication and hear hints and rumors concerning a Messiah.

B. F. Westcott says that the tense of the verb ekuklosan (encircled) indicates a definite, decisive act. They had Him cornered in a public place and this time He would not escape until they had what they wanted from Himan unequivocal statement that He was the Messiah.

It is hardly in keeping with the context of this incident to maintain, as do some commentators, that the Jews surrounding Him were sincere in their question as to His claims. The multitudes, it is true, were hanging on His every word and calling Him the prophet (cf. Luk. 12:1; Luk. 13:17). But John almost always means the rulers when he says the Jews . . . and the animosity of the rulers was coming to a fevered pitch (cf. John, Chapters 7 through Joh. 10:21 and see also Luk. 11:53). All this makes us believe that these Jews who encircled Jesus were the rulers and their subordinatesall with a definite plan to trap Him and kill Him.

If they could not kill Him, they might at least discredit and denounce Him publicly. A literal rendering of the question of the Jews in Joh. 10:24 would read, Until when do you lift up our soul? What these enemies probably aim at is a plain, straight-forward, not-to-be misunderstood statement, I am the Messiah! He was not behaving as they thought He oughtpolitically, militaristicif He was the Messiah. Yet, though Jesus did not fulfill the popular concept of the Messiah, the multitudes were stirred up and of divided opinion concerning Him. Some were even opposing the rulers in favor of the Nazarene (cf. Joh. 7:12; Joh. 7:31; Joh. 7:43; Joh. 10:19-21). The rulers are actually challenging Jesus to either stop His meddling in morals, ethics, and doctrine, or come out and declare Himself plainly as their type of Messiah.

Jesus replies, I did tell you, but you did not believe me! Although He never said as plainly as they demanded, I am the Christ, (except in two instances to individuals, cf. Joh. 4:26; Joh. 9:37), His works accomplished always in the name of the Father were plain enoughNicodemus recognized Him as sent from God (cf. Joh. 3:2). Over and over again, Jesus told them that He and the Father were one (cf. Joh. 5:17-47; Joh. 8:16-19; Joh. 8:26-29, Joh. 8:42, Joh. 8:56-58; Joh. 10:11-18), and substantiated it with His miracles. The evidence was of the highest nature of credibility and verificationempirical! Their failure to accept Him as the Son of God was not due to insufficient evidenceit was their own sin! Greed and false pride led them into bigotry, prejudice and spiritual blindness. They did not believe because they did not want to believe! They were not like the humble, obedient, trusting sheep who listened to Jesus voice (e.g., the Samaritan woman, Joh. 4:1-54, and the blind beggar, Joh. 9:1-41).

We have dealt with the subject of sheep and Shepherd in our comments on Joh. 10:11-18. However, there is one aspect of that relationship emphasized here in Joh. 10:27-29 that was not stressed in the previous section. Those who become obedient, trusting, and following sheep to the Good Shepherd will be given eternal life. The verb didomi (give) is in the present tense, indicating that one is given eternal life at the moment he becomes one of Jesus sheep. Those who are believing in Jesus are possessing eternal life (cf. our comments, Joh. 5:24, Vol. I, p. 188). John the Apostle later wrote his First Epistle to give Christians assurance that they might know that they have eternal life (cf. 1Jn. 5:13). They will never perish! Perish here does not mean annihilation, but eternal separation from the presence of God. The Greek idiom to express never is emphatic! Translated literally Joh. 10:28 b would read, . . . and they shall not perish, no, not even unto eternity!

The main idea Jesus propagates in the last phrase of Joh. 10:28 (and no one shall snatch them out of my hand) is the equality of power to protect the sheep He shares with the Father, Jehovah-God. He is leading up to the sublime, unfathomable, and astounding statement, I and the Father are one. He wants these Jews to know that along with His promise of eternal life He promises omnipotent protection. He can promise divine security because the Father is omnipotent and He and the Father are one! The Father gave Him the sheep and sent Him into the world with all His power and authority (again we refer you to Joh. 5:17-47). Lenski says, Does the promise of Jesus, standing there in human form before the Jews, sound preposterous, that no one shall snatch his sheep out of his hand? To snatch them out of his hand is the same as snatching them out of the Fathers hand. Paul speaks of the safety of our newly given life in Col. 3:3, For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

These two verses (Joh. 10:28-29) certainly do not offer proof texts for the unscriptural doctrine of once in grace, always in grace, or the more dignified, eternal security. Westcott says concisely, If man falls at any stage in his spiritual life, it is not from want of divine grace, nor from the overwhelming power of adversaries, but from his neglect to use that which he may or may not use. We cannot be protected against ourselves in spite of ourselves . . . The sense of the divine protection is at any moment sufficient to inspire confidence, but not to render effort unnecessary. Paul states plainly that salvation is given by God, but requires a continuing effort of faith and works on the part of man (cf. Eph. 2:8-10; Php. 2:12-13). Romans, the eighth chapter, combines the two ideas that when man submits to the leading of the Holy Spirit and puts to death the deeds of the body, there is no principality, power, nor any other creature which is able to separate him from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. As the old adage has it, No one can snatch us out of the Lords hand, but we can certainly jump out ourselves! Perhaps Jesus has in mind the poor blind beggar who, three months before, had been excommunicated from the temple. The Jewish rulers might cast him out, but no one would be able to snatch him out of the Good Shepherds hand, for he was one of the true sheep.

Having inferred His equality with the Father in the matter of protection for the true believer, Jesus says straight out in Joh. 10:30, I and the Father are one. Commentators go to great lengths to argue whether this oneness is oneness of wills and works or oneness in essence. Some even attempt to explain how the Father and Son may be two persons yet be One. It is useless to bring earthly analogies into play to try to explain this unique relationship. All are untrue and fall far short of explaining this unity. We are forced to see that Jesus speaks distinctly about two persons and yet, they are one! Here we must walk by faith and not by sight. It is better to accept the profound statements of Scripture on this subject, e.g., . . . for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily . . . (Col. 2:9) and concern ourselves with interpreting His will for our lives. Of one thing we may be certain, the Son and the Father are equally God (cf. Joh. 1:1; Joh. 1:14; Joh. 1:18; Joh. 5:17-23; Joh. 14:8-11).

This declaration was certainly plain enough! Perhaps it was too much! Perhaps if Jesus had said, I am your Messiah, they would not have been so violent. It seems that the Jews, in spite of clear prophecy to the contrary, had an idea that the Messiah would be simply a powerful, personable, politically oriented human being. They certainly were not looking for Immanuel (God with us). When one stood before them in mortal flesh and claimed, I am equal with the Father, they would have none of it. They had no time for God among them, convicting them of their sins and preaching a spiritual kingdomthey wanted a Messiah that would give them food in their stomachs (cf. Joh. 6:26). Therefore, they ran (as the Greek verb implies) to some section of the temple where there were stones, probably piled for repairs, and carried them to Solomons Porch ready to stone Him to death for alleged blasphemy.

Quiz

What is the history behind the Feast of Dedication?

Why did the Jews encircle Jesus near Solomons Porch?

How did Jesus tell the Jews that He was the Christ?

Does Joh. 10:28 teach once saved, always saved?

Can you explain how The Father and The Son are One, yet two persons?

Why would these Jews suddenly become so violent as to want to kill Jesus for the simple statement, I and the Father are one?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(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:

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And it was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter.’
The feast of dedication was a winter festival and celebrated the rededication of the Temple in 165/4 BC by Judas Maccabaeus, after it had been desecrated by Antiochus Ephiphanes. The Jews saw it as an amazing act of God, carried out on their behalf, and such a time would be a time of great expectation as they hoped that He would again act on their behalf in bringing them political freedom. It would turn thoughts towards the coming of the Messiah.
‘It was winter.’ This comment is probably intended to be seen as significant (compare Joh 13:30). The summer days had passed and the chill of winter was on Jesus’ ministry. The mention of the Feast of Dedication may be intended to hint that there was about to be a new purifying of the Temple by its destruction and replacement with the new Temple of God, Jesus and His people.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Feast of Dedication ( Joh 10:22-42 ).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Testifies of His Deity: His Works Joh 10:22-42 gives us Jesus’ testimony of His deity based upon His works, which refers to His miracles in the previous passages of John’s Gospel. Jesus makes five references to His works (Joh 10:25; Joh 10:32; Joh 10:37-38) in this passage by opening His testimony with a reference to these works (Joh 10:25).
Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
Joh 10:22 Comments – The Feast of Dedication and the Feast of Purim were the two Jewish feasts instituted after Israel’s return from the Babylonian Captivity. The Feast of Dedication, also called Hanukkah, or the Feast of Lights, commemorates the restoration of the Temple services by Judas Maccabeus after it had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes. [221] This feast was celebrated for eight days, commencing on the 25 th day of the ninth Jewish month (December). [222] Josephus explains the origin of this feast, saying, “Now Judas celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days; and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon: but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices; and he honored God, and delighted them, by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs, when after a long time of intermission, they unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their worship, that they made it a law for their posterity, that they should keep a festival, on account of the restoration of their temple worship, for eight days. And from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and call it Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and that thence was the name given to that festival.” ( Antiquities 12.7.7)
[221] Andreas J. Ksterberger, John, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 309.
[222] Ella Davis Isaacs, “Feast of Dedication,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008); R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Feasts and Festivals: Feast of Dedication.”
Joh 10:22 is the only mention in the Holy Scriptures of the Feast of Dedication.
Joh 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
Joh 10:23 Comments The six feast sections of John’s Gospel (Joh 2:1 to Joh 11:54) have distinct transitional statements regarding Jesus journeying to a Jewish feast and retreating after manifesting Himself as the Son of God (Joh 2:2; Joh 2:12; Joh 5:1; Joh 6:1; Joh 7:1-9; Joh 10:23). The seventh miracle of the Resurrection also begins with a similar statement of Jesus arriving at a feast (Joh 11:55 to Joh 12:1).
Joh 10:23 Comments – Solomon’s porch is mentioned three times in the Scriptures (Joh 10:23, Act 3:11; Act 5:12). W. Shaw Caldecott describes this structure, saying, “ In architecture a ‘porch’ is strictly an exterior structure forming a covered approach to the entrance of a building; a ‘portico’ is an ambulatory, consisting of a roof supported by columns placed at regular intervals–a roofed colonnade. The portico bearing Solomon’s name was that running along the eastern wall in the Court of the Gentiles of Herod’s temple.” [223]
[223] W. Shaw Caldecott, “Porch, Portico, Solomon’s,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).
Act 3:11, “And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon’s, greatly wondering.”
Act 5:12, “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch.”
Joh 10:24 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.
Joh 10:24 Comments – During the Feast of Dedication, emphasis is placed upon the perseverance of our faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. For example, this section in John’s Gospel opens with the Jews saying to Jesus, “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” (Joh 10:24). Thus, the Jews were not willing to endure Jesus’ season of ministry as He repeatedly worked miracles and used those opportunities to declare Himself as the Son of God. In contrast, Martha makes a statement that reflects true, persevering faith, saying to Jesus, “Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.” (Joh 11:21-22)
Joh 10:25 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.
Joh 10:25 Comments Within the context of the Gospel of John, the miracles that Jesus wrought were accompanied by the testimony of Jesus Christ declaring Himself as the Son of God, with each miracle reflecting a particular aspect of His deity. Thus, in Joh 10:25 Jesus refers to His miracles as the supporting testimony of His deity.
We also will do greater works (Joh 14:12-13). Saving souls is indeed a greater work, but, in preaching the Gospel and in bringing souls to Jesus, God has chosen to confirm His Gospel with signs and wonders (Mar 16:17-20 and Heb 2:4). Jesus tells the Jews in this verse that the miracles are a witness to the truth of His message, but they did not hear (understand or perceive) what He was saying (see verse 27). God’s sheep hear His voice.
Joh 14:12-13, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”
Mar 16:17, “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;”
Mar 16:20, “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”
Heb 2:4, “God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?”
Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh 10:26 Comments – Joh 10:26 gives the reason for the unbelief of the Jews, explaining that these individuals were not of Jesus’ flock.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:27 “My sheep hear my voice” – Comments – The sheep that were of Jesus’ flock have an open heart to hear and believe the Word of God. Jesus was addressing Jews whose hearts were hardened.
Joh 10:27 “and they follow me” That is, “they obey me.”
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:28 “and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” Comments – This phrase is an example of poetic Hebrew parallelism, found often throughout the Gospel of John.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
Joh 10:29 Scripture Reference – A similar verse is found in 1Co 10:13, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
Joh 10:33 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.
Joh 10:33 “makest thyself God” Scripture Reference – Note Joh 5:18, “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God .”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:34 Comments – In Joh 10:34 Jesus quotes from Psa 82:6, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” This is the only time Psa 82:6 is quoted in the New Testament.
Why was the book of Psalms called the law in this passage; perhaps because all of the books written in the Old Testament were written under the dispensation of the Mosaic Law. The book of Psalms points to the Mosaic Law often as representing God’s ways of righteous. The books of the Old Testament describe the living out of the Law in the nation of Israel. Thus, the Law is used in its broadest means in Joh 10:34 to refer to all of the Old Testament.
Joh 10:39 Comments – John tells us that on at least four occasions Jesus withdrew Himself in order to avoid a conflict with the Jews.
Joh 5:13, “And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.”
Joh 8:59, “Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”
Joh 10:39, “Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,”
Joh 12:36, “While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.”
Jesus faced similar wrath from the people of Nazareth in the beginning of His public ministry.
Luk 4:28-29, “And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.”
Jesus knew that His time was not yet, and so He deliberately escaped.
Joh 7:30, “Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.”
Joh 8:20, “These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.”
However, when His time had come, He willingly gave Himself over into the hands of man.
Joh 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
Joh 10:40 Comments John the Baptist was first baptizing people in Bethany (Bethabara) beyond Jordan) (Joh 1:28).
Joh 1:28, “These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.”
Joh 10:41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
Joh 10:42 And many believed on him there.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Sixth Miracle (Perseverance) (Jesus Testifies that He is the Source of Man’s Future Hope of the Resurrection) – Joh 10:22 to john 11-57 records the sixth miracle of Jesus Christ that was used to bear witness of His deity, which was the raising of Lazarus from the dead. This miracle is unique to John’s Gospel, not being recorded in the Synoptics. During the Feast of Dedication, emphasis is placed upon the perseverance of our faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. For example, this section in John’s Gospel opens with the Jews saying to Jesus, “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” (Joh 10:24). Thus, the Jews were not willing to endure Jesus’ season of ministry as He repeatedly worked miracles and used those opportunities to declare Himself as the Son of God. In contrast, Martha makes a statement that reflects true, persevering faith, saying to Jesus, “Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.” (Joh 11:21-22) Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead and declares Himself as the “Resurrection and the Life” for all mankind (Joh 11:25), revealing man’s need to persevere until his how glorification at his resurrection in his redemptive journey (Joh 10:22 to Joh 11:54). This section in John’s Gospel begins with Jesus’ testimony of His deity based upon His works and miracles (Joh 10:22-38). After the transition passage typical of each section in which Jesus withdraws Himself (Joh 10:39-42), He performs the sixth miracle of the raising of Lazarus from the dead (Joh 11:1-27). John usually records Jesus’ testimony of His deity in relation to a miracle after performing this work. However, in this passage Jesus testifies of His deity as the Resurrection and the Life immediately before raising Lazarus from the dead (Joh 11:1-27). He then performs this miracle (Joh 11:28-44).
This miracle testifies of the part of our spiritual journey called perseverance. In this story of the raising of Lazarus we see Mary and Martha anxiously awaiting the return of Jesus Christ to their home so that their brother would not die. Jesus deliberately delayed His coming after hearing the news of this sickness so that He could perform this particular miracle of the resurrection of the dead so that they might believe in Him. Jesus waited until Lazarus had died so that He could testify that He Himself is the Resurrection and the Life. We, too, anxiously await the return of our Lord and Saviour, who will resurrect those who are dead in Christ and change our mortal bodies into immortality. It is through Christ we, too, will partake of our resurrection and eternal glorification. This miracle of the resurrection reflects the believer’s future hope of glorification with the Father in Heaven. Our response to this sixth miracle is to place our hope in a future resurrection and eternal life as a result of our faith in Jesus Christ. If we believe in Jesus as the Son of God, we will put our hope in Him for our future resurrection and eternal glorification with Him in Heaven.
Outline – Here is a suggested outline:
1. Jesus Testifies of His Deity (His Works) Joh 10:22-42
2. The Sixth Miracle (Testimony of Lazarus) Joh 11:1-54
a. Jesus Testifies of His Deity (Resurrection & Life) Joh 11:1-27
b. The Raising of Lazarus Joh 11:28-44
c. The Plot to Kill Jesus Joh 11:45-54
This Miracle Led to Jesus’ Arrest and Crucifixion – Because the raising of Lazarus was performed in Bethany, which was close to Jerusalem, and because the news of this miracle spread rapidly among the people, the city of Jerusalem was stirred. They would soon receive Him in His Triumphant Entry as a “king,” but the Jewish leaders decide that this miracle is too much for them to bear because of the large amount of people who believed in Him as a result. They then intensified their efforts to put Him to death and found justification for themselves for fear of the Romans (Joh 11:45-54). At this point, they began to organize his arrest. Thus, this miracle precipitated the death of Jesus.
Comparison of Martha and Mary The story of Lazarus being raised from the dead contrasts the reactions of Martha and Mary as they met Jesus. While Martha went out and met Him (Joh 11:20), Mary saw Him and fell down at his feet (Joh 11:32). It was Mary who first came to Jesus as a sinner and anointed His feet with oil and wiped them with her hair (Luk 7:36-50). Therefore, she seems to respond to Jesus with deeper emotion because she was forgiven of much sin. Also, both said the same thing to Jesus, “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” (Joh 11:21; Joh 11:32)
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

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 25 th
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.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 10:22-23. It wasthe feast of the dedication, As this feast was in winter, it could not be observed in commemoration of the dedication of the temple by Solomon, which happened in the month Ethanim, which answers to our September. 1Ki 8:2. Nor could it be the dedication of the temple by Nehemiah, which was in the spring. Ezr 6:15. But it was that which was kept in honourof the purification of the temple by JudasMaccabeus. This restoration of the worship of God was a very joyful event to every religious Israelite; and being considered as a new dedication, a great regard was paid to the festival instituted in commemoration of it. The festival itself went bythe name of lights, in allusion to the ceremony of burning a great number of lights at the doors of their houses. They celebrated this feast for eight days successively, beginning on the 25th of the month Casleu. 1Ma 4:56; 1Ma 4:59; 2Ma 10:5; 2Ma 10:8. 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 inclemencies of the season, Jesus (who scrupled not to attend the feast, though it was of human institution) walked in Solomon’s portico, which was a stately fabric, inclosingpart of the court of the Gentiles. When Solomon built the temple, finding the area of mount Sion too small to answer his magnificent plan, he filled up a part of the adjacent valley, and built this portico over it; which was a noble structure, consisting of three rows of pillars, of exquisite workmanship, and was called “The Royal Portico.” It was supported by a wall four hundred cubits high, consisting of stones of a vast bulk, each stone being said to be twenty cubits long and six high. Josephus speaks of it as continuing even to the time of Albinus and Agrippa, which was several years after the death of Christ. See on Mat 24:2. Act 3:11; Act 5:12.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

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 in Joh 10:40 cannot be reckoned among such requirements.
] 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 . See 1Ma 4:50 ff.; 2Ma 1:18 ; 2Ma 10:6 ff.; Joseph. Antiq . 12:7. 7. From this festival ( ) sprang the Christian Church Dedication Festival, and its name . See Augusti, Denkw. III. p. 316.
.] The celebration was not restricted to Jerusalem, but was universal (see Lightfoot, p. 1063 f.); the words . are added because Jesus was still there.
. ] a remark added for the sake of John’s 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 Solomon’s 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 (comp. Act 3:11 ) was a portico on the eastern side of the temple buildings (hence denominated . by Josephus in his Antt. 20:9. 7), which, according to Josephus, was a relic from Solomon’s 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 (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.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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, ] in the temple in Solomons 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 Fathers name, they [these] bear 26witness of me. But [Nevertheless] ye believe not, because [for, ] 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, ] than all,32 and no man [no one] is able to pluck [tear] them 30[anything (at all) ] out of my Fathers hand. I and my [the] Father are one [ ].
31Then the Jews [The Jews therefore] took up stones again to [in order to, ] 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, ] 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
[Lcke 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 Pera, 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; , Joh 10:40, assuredly has reference to the presupposition that Jesus had before sojourned in Pera. 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 (, ) instituted by Judas Maccabus (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 ). 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 , while from its fundamental idea it derived the name of .
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 Lcke [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 Solomons porch [arcade, colonnade].The (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 ( 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. . 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 ( , 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, ].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? [ ;]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 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 (= ), 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 Maccabus 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 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 might indeed be considered to have a positive reference to the foregoing : 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 Fathers name (not in the official Messianic name). Therefore we read: I have spoken to youand 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 Christs 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 [ ]. The unfolding of this personal connection: a. I know them [ ]: and they follow Me []; b. I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish [ , ]; c. none shall tear them out of My hand ]: the Father gave them to Me, and He is greater than all: none can tear them out of the Fathers 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, Christs 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 prveniens. The Shepherds 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 Fathers hand; (b) I and My Father are one; (c) consequently no man can pluck them out of My hand. (Chrysostom, Calvin, and others, Lcke). 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 natur 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 natur to be implied by the unitas potenti. See Gerhard I. p. 252, Lyser and others. Even Calvinalthough on this account accused by Hunnius of a scelusbrought 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 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 to dynamic unity, we have hero one of the strongest arguments for the strict divinity of Christ. It is implied even more in than in . 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; refutes the former by asserting the dynamic (and, by implication, the essential) unity of the Father and the Son, and refute the latter by asserting the personal distinction. Sabellianism would require the masculine instead of the neuter, and this would be inconsistent with and the self-conscious .44P. 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 Christs 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 (); 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. , 1. Works of love: Baumg.-Crusius; 2. prclara opera, excellent works: Meyer; 3. irreproachable works: Luthardt. Special importance attaches to the itself. The is a miracle. Similarly, the without doubt contains the idea of sign-giving. 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 , etc., is simply an explanation; according to Meyer: For blasphemy and that because. The would then be superfluous. They reproach Him with two things: first, that He places God on a par with Himselfand this they call blasphemy; secondly, that He makes Himself Godand 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. , Exo 21:6; Exo 22:28 (comp. 2Ch 19:5-7). Moses uses it in a collective senseSept. to ; here in the Psalm it is a personal appellation of individuals; in parallel with is Tholuck.I said, 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 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 ; and that of Theodor-Mopsuest. (and Olshausen) who take it to mean the word of Gods 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 , 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 , 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 titleto Christ (Bengel, Lcke); 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 did but come, to Him whom God sanctified and sent into the world, i.e., whom He has actually made His 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, only 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 , inasmuch as He is . 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; , 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 , 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.Christs 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 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 Fathers 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 notare 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 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.Pera. 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 Pera 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 Maccabus, 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 Maccaban 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 Lords own words,I and My Father are oneunum, 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, , 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, , , , , , , 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 Christs Incarnation, by which He became Emmanuel,God with us, God manifest in the flesh, or, as He there expresses it, (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 powerwhich with God is omnipotent powerinvolves 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 Solomons 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.Christs 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 Christs 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 Fathers hand.The great word of Christ: I and the Father are onehow 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 Pera a prelude to the flight of the Christians into Pera before the destruction of Jerusalem.Pera, 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 Pera, or how Johns 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 Saviours 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 Gods 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 , one Person, but , one divine Being.Lisco: Since He (the Father) is greater, mightier than all, than all hostile powers, Christs 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 Johns 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 Me1. 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 Christs 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 Christs sheep.
Joh 10:27. All Christs sheep follow Him in His, 1. doctrine, 2. example.
Joh 10:28. Eternal life Isaiah , 1. the portion of Christs 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 Wisdoms 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, their1. 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 Johns 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 that1. 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 Christs 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 instead of .P. S.]
[31]Joh 10:20. 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: , , the Father who hath given (them) to me is greater than all; but the best authorities omit , and read for , and for . Tert.: Pater quod mihi dedit, majus est omnibus. So Tischendorf: , that which the Father hath given me is greater than all. But this gives no good sense. The neuter was no doubt the original reading, but as transcribers did not understand it as belonging to , they changed into the neuter. Restoring , we get the sense: The Father (or, My Father, if we retain ) 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. must be dropped in accordance with preponderant authorities. [ 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: [learn and know, or, know and understand], in accordance with B. L. X., supposing the , on account of a failure to comprehend it, to have been changed into [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 , B. D. L. [Sin.], etc., most versions, etc., read .
[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 . favor Dr. Langes 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 ( ) 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 Solomons 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 (, 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 , double negation) perish for ever ( ); (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 (, neuter, something greater, a greater power) than all () 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 (), for, as Hengstenberg in loc. well remarks, this would deprive Christs 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 Gods sovereignty to mans 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. 103125. 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 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: , ; , . Bengel: Unum sumus non solum voluntatis consensu, sad unitate potenti, adeoque natur. Nam omnipotentia est attributum naturale. Godet (II. 307): Ce pluriel Nous Sommes, ne serait-il pas un blasphme dans la bouche d une crtature? Le minislre d tat qui se permit un jour de dire: Le roi et moi, nous provoqua le rire de tout le Parlement; que mriterait la crature 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 Jsus et des fidles n est point un simple accord de volont, c est une action consubstantielle. Lincarnation a fond entre Jsus et nous un rapport de nature tellement complet, quil embrasse notre personalit tout entire, physique et morale. Compare also Hengstenberg in loc.P. S.]
[45][The patristic and scholastic terms (from , to circulate, to go about), , 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.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

IX
REPENT OR PERISH; PARABLES OF THE MUSTARD SEED AND LEAVEN; AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION; “ARE THERE FEW THAT BE SAVED?” DINING WITH A PHARISEE AND A THREEFOLD LESSON; THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP
Harmony, pages 118-122 and Luk 13:1-14 ; Luk 13:22-25 ; Joh 10:22-42 .

In this chapter we commence with section 87 of the Harmony (Luk 13:1-9 ), which is on the necessity of repentance. This thought is elaborately treated in my discussion on repentance (see The Four Gospels, Volume I of this INTERPRETATION). Therefore, I pause here only to say that the parable in Luk 13:6-9 illustrates the teaching on repentance in the preceding verses as it applied to the Jews. The “three years” of this parable refers to the three years of Christ’s ministry to the Jews prior to this time. “This year” refers to the time from the giving of this parable to the end of Christ’s ministry and was the last space for repentance granted the Jewish nation. This parable of the fig tree should be taken in connection with the cursing of the barren fig tree which marks the end of the space here allotted for their repentance. Then the mercy limit was passed and the tree was cut down, i.e., the sentence was pronounced though it was not executed until the year A. D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus.
In section 88 (Luk 13:10-21 ) we have an account of an act of mercy on the part of Jesus, performed on the sabbath day, which provoked the indignant expression of condemnation from the ruler of the synagogue because this was done on the sabbath day. To this Jesus replied with the parable of watering the ox on the sabbath, which shows the triumph of mercy over statutory law. This put his adversaries to shame, and all the multitude rejoiced because of the glorious things that were done by him. Then he gave two parables that of the mustard seed and that of the leaven, illustrating, respectively, the extensive and intensive phases of the kingdom. The kingdom, with a very small beginning is destined to be the biggest thing in the world, and the method of the kingdom is the leavening process. The principles of the kingdom, through the gospel, must permeate every part of the world until the whole shall be leavened.
In section 89 (Joh 10:22-42 ) we have an account of an incident in Solomon’s porch in the Temple at Jerusalem. The Jews here demanded that Jesus should tell them plainly whether he was the Christ. To this he replied that he had already told them, but they would not believe. Then he cited them to his works and his relationship to his people and the Father, upon which they attempted to take him, but “He went forth out of their hand,” and went away into Perea where many believed on him. In this section is to be noted one of the strongest teachings of our Lord on the final preservation of the saints: that his people know him intimately and are held by the firm hand clasp of himself and the Father, which shows that God’s people are beyond the power of the devil to destroy them. Not one of them shall perish without breaking the omnipotent grip of the hands of the Trinity. In section 90 (Luk 13:22-35 ) of the Harmony (Luk 13:22-35 ) we have a very important question asked, and therefore I shall dwell upon it at length here because it involves a most important proposition respecting the final outcome of the gospel of the kingdom of our Lord. To a Bible class I once put these questions and passed them all around, insisting on direct answers from each one: “Have you ever been seriously concerned about the comparative number of the saved and the lost? Does the question obtrude itself often? So far as you are able to determine, is mere curiosity the predominant element prompting the question?”
It was developed by the answers that all had been concerned and often about this matter the concern sometimes resulting from curious speculation sometimes from graver causes. Where the spirit of inquiry is reverent, in view of the infinite God, and humble, in view of our own finite nature, and for good ends, very gentle is our Lord in replying to our questionings, and only where it is best for us do we find the barrier, “Hidden things belong to God, but revealed things to us and our children.” If then we have this reverent spirit, this humility so becoming to our finite nature, if our inquiry looks to good ends only, and if we are willing to stop where our Lord’s wisdom and love raises a barrier to further investigation just now, and if at that barrier we consent in patience to wait, comforting ourselves with his assurance that we shall know hereafter what we know not now, even knowing as we are known, then I see no reason why we may not follow our great Teacher as he, in his own fashion, answers the question: “Are there few that be saved?” Let us then very reverently consider the whole paragraph: “And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the Master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us; and he shall answer and say to you, I know you not whence ye are; then shall ye begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in our streets; and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without. And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.”
Now that the whole paragraph is before us we are first of all reminded of this saying in the Sermon on the Mount: “Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many be they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it.”
Here then we learn our first lesson if our minds are docile, that our Lord’s words are often repeated, but always with a variant setting of conditions and circumstances. Wide apart are the places and yet wider apart the conditions and times of the two lessons. The scene of the Sermon on the Mount is Galilee, the time early in his ministry. The application of the paragraph cited (Mat 7:13-14 ) more local. The scene of our lesson today is Perea, late in his ministry, the application more worldwide.
In Mat 7:14 he says, “Few there be that find it.” But we may not arbitrarily construe these words of our Lord to be an answer to the general question: “Are there few that be saved?” When he says “few” in Mat 7:14 , we are sure he is not referring to the whole number of the elect. He refers to Jews and to Jews of that day. Allow me to prove this double limitation. Turn to the next chapter in Matthew, where our Lord marvels at the faith of the Gentile centurion: “And the centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers: and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. And when Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
This incident occurred immediately after the Sermon on the Mount and that “few” there has become the “many” here. So, then, we must not construe Mat 7:14 , “few there be that find it,” with this passage. For a true parallel read together Mat 8:11 and Luk 13:29 , this way: “And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 8:11 ). “And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God” (Luk 13:29 ).
The glorious prophecies and promises in both Testaments concerning the ingathering of the Jews after the fulness of the Gentiles, show that the “few” of Mat 7:14 is limited even in its Jewish application. So that we may express the whole matter somewhat in this fashion: “Are there few that be saved?” Answer: Of the Jews of Christ’s day, few; of the Gentiles, not many; of Jews and Gentiles in apostolic days, perhaps we find an answer in the glowing imagery of Rev 7:2-17 . But two verses express the thought: “And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a hundred and forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel. . . . After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, that no man could number, out of every nation, and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands. . . . These that are arrayed in the white robes, who are they, and whence came they? . . . These are they who come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” But we must not look on this as the final showing. This is the first fruits only. This is but the first martyr crop. We must read Revelation 21-22 to get a full view of the Holy City the Lamb’s Bride.
So then if I were called on to answer, in the light of Bible teaching, this question: “At the judgment will the saved outnumber the lost?” I would reply by citing in contrast a Jewish opinion prevalent just before Christ was born, and a Christian opinion of the present day, and say frankly that I am inclined to the Christian opinion. The Jewish opinion is thus expressed twice in the apocryphal book of Esdras: “The kingdom on earth was made for many; the kingdom above for few,” and “The number of the saved is like a drop to the wave.” Such is the Jewish opinion. The Christian opinion, expressed by one of the truly great expositors of this generation is: “The number of the finally lost will compare with the whole number saved about as the criminals in jails and penitentiaries now compare with the free and law-abiding citizens of this country.” For myself, without taking time just now to cite the scriptural basis of the judgment, I heartily cherish the Christian opinion.
Understand me, I do not dogmatize here, but express the deepest, maturest conviction of mind, that at the round up, the outcome, the consummation, our blessed Lord will have saved the overwhelming majority of the human race. There are many mansions in the Father’s house. They will be occupied. There is great room in paradise. It will be filled. Many indeed that were bidden shall not enter in, but other hosts will. I count much on the millennium. Even if it mean only a literal thousand years, who can estimate the teeming population this earth may bring forth and nourish in ten centuries of the highest religious civilization, with Satan shut up; peace reigning; no armies; no wars; no plague, famine, or pestilence? I am quite sure that all the population for the first six thousand years would not be a tithe of the population of the seventh thousand and under millennial conditions of health, knowledge, peace, and love. The devil banished and selfishness routed and religion reigning as Christ taught it, all the latent forces of nature developed by civilization, disease checked, and this earth could easily produce and support a hundred billion people for each generation of the thousand years. I mention this just this way because of the deep earnestness and ever-recurring interest attaching to the question: “Lord, are there few that be saved?”
Let us now take up this passage and mark our Saviour’s treatment of this dread question. The questioner here, as I think) was prompted by prurient curiosity, or to evade personal responsibility. This may be inferred from the fact that our Lord did not answer him directly. He heard him, but he answered aside to the others; and always where some good and honest motive is at the bottom of a question propounded to our Lord, he answers to the person. Seeing then that when this man asked this question, “Are there few that be saved?” he turned and gave his answer to the crowd that were about him, I believe that the question was prompted by an evil motive, though the questioner may not have been conscious of it.
It is that answer of our Lord Jesus Christ to that question, as set forth in this passage, that I wish to speak very earnestly about. Our Saviour’s answer suggests several reflections, each worthy of some notice, in its order.
1. There is an implied rebuke of the questioner. This may be fairly gathered from the answer: “Strive to enter in at the strait gate.” Does not that seem to suggest to the questioner that there was a much more important matter to which he should be giving his attention? Does not that say to him plainly that his mind is exercised upon the solution of a problem comparatively unimportant, and especially when considered in contrast with this mightier one? The rebuke points with emphatic earnestness to the necessity of giving precedence to a personal matter. “Are you to be one of the saved? Are you to be one of the saved, whether the whole number be few or many? That number, great or small, will not amount to much to you if you are lost.” Whatever the number, whatever the comparative status of the number, here is a question of great and personal interest, “Are you to be one of the saved?” This means that each one should settle the question of his personal salvation; that there is no other question comparable to it in urgency and importance. There is nothing superior in obligation. If we are not now saved we might combine all the other matters which excite public interest, from one end of this earth to the other, and the combination means less to us personally than this: “Are we to be of the saved?”
2. Following that thought comes this reflection: In the matter of personal salvation, whatever many scriptures seem to teach, there must be earnest exertion upon our part. No man believes more than I do the doctrine of predestination, the doctrine of the elect, the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation, the doctrine that salvation from its inception to its consummation is of God, the doctrine of the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit at the very beginning and throughout the entire course of the Christian life. All of these I believe, without a shadow of reservation. And yet the Bible teaches that man must not sit still; that he occupies no waiting attitude; that he is not to remain in a morally passive state, and if I knew that I had to stand before the judgment bar tomorrow and answer for the orthodoxy, the soundness of the statement ‘I now make, I would lift up my voice confidently and say that this lesson shows that in the matter of salvation there must be the most attentive, the most earnest, the most vigorous and the most persistent exertion upon our part. On what word do I found this? I found it on this word “strive.” It is our Lord, not I, who turns the questioner from a question of curiosity first to his own case and then to the responsibility of exertion. The Greek word is agonizes. The Milton has a poem, “Samson Agonistes,” that is, “Samson the Wrestler.” This very good word is employed in the Greek to indicate, not only the kind of preparation and training one must make to be able to wrestle on the arena with a competitor, but the degree and persistence of intense exertion that he actually puts forth in that conflict. He prepares himself for the contest by a regimen of diet. He does not eat the things that enervate. He does not give himself up to dissipation, but by temperance, by self-denial, by practice, by continual exertion, he drills and trains his muscles the muscles of his fingers, of his hands, of his legs, of his back, of his whole body, and when after the most diligent training the hour comes for the wrestling, then see the exertion that he puts forth! What can equal it? Every muscle is on tension and it is not relaxed for one moment. It is persistent. Some of the most expressive works of art in painting and sculpture exhibit the bulging outlines of the muscles of the athlete. And yet that is the word which our Saviour uses by which to express personal exertion in the matter of salvation. And it is the precise thought that the apostle Paul brings out in his letter to the Hebrews under the image of the race course. In view of the fact that they are surrounded by so great a crowd of witnesses, the competitors are commanded to lay aside every weight and every besetting sin, and to run, and to run with patience the race which is set before them. Evidently our Lord did not employ such terms to express a passive state of mind on the question of personal salvation. Not only this term “strive,” but others of like import are employed: “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven.” He calls upon us to direct our attention, to call forth all our powers, to concentrate our minds, and to lay hold and to hold on, and to press to its settlement the question of our personal salvation in the sight of God.
3. The third thought is that not all who strive will be saved: “I say unto you, Strive to enter in at the strait gate, for many shall seek to enter in and shall not be able.” Here it is of infinite moment to know certainly the ground of this disability. By paraphrase and punctuation we may easily learn. Note this reading. “Do you strive now to enter in at the strait gate, for many shall seek to enter therein later and shall not be able when once the Master of the house is risen up and the door is shut.” The thought then is this: That there comes in a limitation as to time; that there is a time to seek and a time when not to seek; that there is a time when seeking has the promise and hope of accomplishment, and there is a time when if one were to put forth all the exertion in the world it would make no difference at all. That certainly is the thought of our Saviour here. It is the keynote of this very lesson. It is Isaiah’s emphasis: “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near.” It is Matthew’s emphasis: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out devils, and by thy name do many mighty works, and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” It is the regnant thought in the parable of the ten virgins. Those five foolish virgins tried to get in, tried hard to get in, and knocked and said, “Lord, Lord, open to us.” Then let it be fixed in our minds in what the inability consists. These that did strive and failed, in what did the inability consist? So far as the teaching of this lesson is concerned the inability consisted in striving after it was too late to strive, when no good could be accomplished by it, when the door was shut, when the opportunity was gone. Then they wake up; they are aroused, and with eyes wide open take in at one appalling sight, the eternal importance of the question, feeling that outside is darkness and death and banishment, and that inside is light and life and glory. Realizing at last the great importance of personal salvation they do then seek him, they do try, they do strive, they do knock and pray, but in vain. “Too late; too late; you cannot enter now.”
4. Keeping strictly to the lesson, which only presents certain views of this question, and not the fulness of it, I call attention to another feature of our Lord’s answer: Enter the strait gate. If one would enter he must try at the right place. Of what avail is it to be concerned about eternity, and what shall it profit if one exert himself from early youth to bended old age, and how much will it count in the solution of the question, that he shall sacrifice any amount of property, if he tries to get in where there is no opening? This part of the subject is brought out very prominently in all the scriptures. People who vainly busy themselves to establish a righteousness by which to enter heaven, they may show a zeal toward God, but it avails nothing if not according to knowledge. They seek to build a tower so high that from its summit they can put their fingers in the crevices of the skies and pull themselves up into the realms of glory. They seek to construct a ladder so long that when its base rests on the earth its summit will touch the skies, and up that ladder, step by step and rung by rung, they fain would climb to glory and to God. But they are never able. Though they rise early, commencing betimes, though they persist in struggling, their ladder is ever too short; their tower does not reach the skies. Their righteousness is spotted, and cannot bear the test, and at that day when they take their seat at the marriage supper of the Lamb, the finger of the bridegroom rests on the guilty shoulder: “Friend, what doest thou here without the wedding garment?”
I mean to say that no matter how much one does, how much he exerts himself, what sacrifices he makes, that if he ever tries to enter heaven except by the strait gate he will never enter. Never!
How important then to settle the question, “What is meant by the gate?” A gate or door is a means of entrance. What is the door? See the walls of heaven rise up in their impenetrable solidity, and I wish to enter in. What is the door? Where will I find an open place through which I may enter in? Following the language of the figure, this is the answer: Our Saviour says, “I am the door.” Whoever seeks to enter heaven, and not through Christ, and not through the atonement of Christ, not through the vicarious expiation of Christ, that man is lost.
5. Let us next inquire what is meant by the door being shut. If Christ is the door what is meant by the inability of people to enter heaven even by Christ? That also we may easily understand. God gives to us here upon earth an opportunity; that opportunity he measures himself. We cannot measure it for ourselves. God measures it out himself. How much there is of it to any particular person only he knows. He may to one school girl give a measure of three weeks. He may to a wicked man give a measure of sixty years, I don’t know. It is wholly, absolutely, with him. Herein is divine sovereignty. This much we do know: There is a time in which Christ may be found, and there is a time in which he cannot be found. Because of that I say, “Exert yourselves, seek ye the Lord while he may be found. Call ye upon him while he is near.” The passages which I have cited show that these people were trying to enter through Christ, but Christ had then withdrawn. Now then plainly, how is the way of life through Christ limited to men? One thing shuts the door, we know, and shuts it forever. If death finds us out of Christ there never will be another opportunity to us. We know that as the tree falls so it lies. One who dies unjust is raised unjust, and all the proceedings of the final judgment are predicated, not on what we do after death, but on what we do in this life. We know that the door is shut then. Our Saviour tells us of a case where it is shut before that time. He says that if one should blaspheme against the Holy Spirit he has committed an eternal sin which hath never forgiveness, neither in this life nor in the life to come, which means that while people are yet alive, before the dissolution of the soul and body they may have that door shut, and that shutting is eternal, and though they may live ever so long after that time, the door is shut and forever shut against them. Rising up early, sitting up late, knocking by day and by night, weeping as Esau wept, they then find no place for repentance. God says about Jezebel, “I gave her space to repent and she repented not.” Jesus said to Jerusalem: “And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”
6. There are many that be saved. “Are there few that be saved?” He seems now to answer that question. So far, he has not answered it. He has desired to awaken attention to a more important question. But now, in the last of his words he does give an answer to this question. As if he said, “You ask me if there are few that be saved; I say, Look yonder toward the north, you see them coming; you see many coming. Look south, you see them coming; you see many coming. Look east, look west, look at every point of the compass, and behold them coming as the birds gathered in clouds to the ark. What mighty multitudes are these? And they are coming and entering into the kingdom of God, and they are sitting down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God, the multitude, the uncounted and uncountable multitude.”
7. Heaven’s joy is its company and feast. What image of heaven is here presented? There are two elements of blessedness set forth, so far as this lesson goes. First, the company of heaven, as represented by the words, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Second, the feast of heaven. There is one long Greek word which is translated by “sit down.” It means this: “Recline at the table.” They shall recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So that there is presented to us heaven, as to its company and its banquet. Elsewhere he tells us of a great supper in which many are invited, and over and over again is heaven presented in that way. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus that is the ruling thought. The rich man here on earth fared sumptuously every day. He had his feast here. Lazarus hungered here. Lazarus died and immediately he was carried up and made to recline at the table with Abraham, for the phrase “in Abraham’s bosom,” means that in reclining at the table he would be next to Abraham, so that in the posture of eating, his head would touch the bosom of Abraham, as John at the Last Supper reclined on the Lord’s bosom. There is the feast of life. The hunger and starvation on the opposite side are presented in the case of the rich man. “Remember that in yonder world you had your feast, your good things. Now you are tormented. In yonder world Lazarus had his evil things, his starvation; now he is filled.”
Heaven I say, in this lesson, is represented in the two features: its company and a feast, and in that company the light shining on them, the music delighting them and the converse of the good and great and wise and pure and true and noble; we may eat and drink to our fill of things which the soul has been hungering for so long, the bread of life the water of life. It cannot but be an attraction that a certain place, no matter how difficult of access, has in it the good people of the world, the women that as daughters were true, as wives were true, as mothers were true, as children of God were true, and who lived not for fashion, not for time, but for eternity. Oh, what a grand thing it will be to see that company of women, and the men that have been self-denying, that have not said, “I live for myself, I satisfy my hunger, I foster my pride, I pander to my tastes, I yield to the cravings of my passions”; not them, but the men who have endeavored to do good, to love God, to brighten the world, all of them gathered together in one grand company. O how sweet in the next world to have that association I No evil men or women among them. No man or woman of slimy thought; no man or woman of vile affections. No man or woman but whose soul has been sanctified by the Spirit of God and made spotless and holy. That is a goodly company to join. And then their feast! When the Queen of Sheba, coming from the uttermost parts of the earth, saw Solomon’s house that he had built, and the sitting of his servants, their apparel, and the feasts that he had spread for them, she fainted away. There was no more breath in her. She said that the half was never told. But O the servants of God, and the sheen of their apparel, and their banquet, and the richness of it, if we could see it we would fall breathless before the ravishing prospect of the things that God has in reservation for them that come to him.
8. Sorrow and despair. We now come to the last thought of the lesson. When we see people coming from the north and the south and the east and the west and reclining at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, there will also be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Here are two thoughts: First, that the blessedness of the saved will be within the vision of the lost. That is certainly taught in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man was not only penetrated with a sense of his own awful loss and agony; but when he lifted up his eyes he saw Lazarus afar off in Abraham’s bosom: “That miserable beggar, in yonder world, I did not count him as the dust of my feet; he had no name on the exchange, he could not even pay for his supper. Oh, to look across the wide and deep and impassable gulf, and to see Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom I Does not that double my hell?” This brings home an awful thought. What is it? The most painful thing in this world to an evil soul, is the anguish of seeing other people happy I The evil people in this world are tormented by that sight now. Mark how a man with an envious, jealous disposition will cast his eye sideways at the prosperity of his neighbor! See how it did fill the devil with malice when Job prospered! The righteous have not that feeling, but I say that the unregenerate heart has it, and one of their enduring pangs of anguish will be to look upon the class of people that they now despise, that they call fools, and to see those fools in heaven and glorified, and they, the wise ones of earth, in the depths of dark and endless damnation. How unspeakable the scorn now extended to the simple-minded followers of Jesus Christ! How the eye is haughtily elevated above them! But when you O proud man, O scorner, O intellectual giant, drawing about yourself the mantle of your exclusiveness when you see the poor despised people enter heaven, enter light and glory, there will come to you these awful pangs: Weeping and gnashing of teeth. You are cast out! You, that had been a governor, you that had been a senator, you that had been a Congressman, you a banker, you a great man in time; you are cast out into outer darkness, and that one that you despised is in heaven! The weeping expresses grief, the gnashing of teeth expresses both the impotence of ungratified malice, and also of despair. A wolf that has sprung at the throat of a lamb and missed his aim, gazing at his victim, now beyond his reach, will gnash his teeth. That is the impotence of malice, malice unable to reach and glut its vengeance. Then when one has striven and has failed, and sees the sand slipping from under his feet, and the opportunities of recovery gone forever, he gnashes his teeth in despair. Unglutted malice, impotence, and despair that shall be the pang of the lost.
In that hour come certain Pharisees to him, warning him that Herod would kill him. But he told them to tell that fox that he must finish his course before any one could kill him; that Herod was not to be feared because Jerusalem was the place where the prophets perished. Then he pronounced the doom and desolation of Jerusalem and that they should not see him again until they should be prepared to serve him, when all the Jews as a nation should be converted. Then they will say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
The incident of dining with a Pharisee (Luk 14:1-24 ) and the lessons growing out of it were very instructive and valuable. The healing of the man with the dropsy and his defense is the first item of interest. The Pharisees were watching him and seeking an occasion to accuse him, but Jesus here anticipated their accusation by raising the question of the lawfulness of healing on the sabbath day, and seeing that he had thus anticipated their objection they held their peace. Then Jesus took the man, healed him, and defended the act by an appeal to their own custom of helping lower animals on the sabbath day. From the occasion comes also the parable of the seats of honor, which shows that the host should designate the relative places of the invited guests and not the guests themselves; or, in a word, this parable teaches that there is no place of conceit in the kingdom of God; that the subjects of the kingdom should be humble and await the call of the Master to promotion. Then follows a second parable growing out of the same occasion, to the end that acts of benevolence should be toward those who are needy, and that those who do them should look to the Lord for the reward which will be bestowed at the resurrection of the just. The third parable growing out of this occasion is the parable of the great supper. This parable shows the vain excuses for not accepting Christ and is one of our Lord’s master strokes at the Jews. They are the ones who were bidden first, but their vain excuses provoked the Lord to denounce them and to send out after the poor and needy, and then again to go into the highways and hedges, everywhere and for everybody, that the Lord’s house should be filled. But the Jews who had the first chance at the gospel were rejected because they rejected him.
In section 92 of the Harmony (Luk 14:25-35 ) we have an impressive lesson on the cost of discipleship. The renouncing of everything which is most dear to the individual and cross-bearing are the essentials to being a disciple of our Lord. He does not mean here that one must literally hate his earthly relations, but that no earthly, or human relation can come between the disciple and his Lord. It is a figure of speech by which one extreme is counteracted by another. Then in view of such cost of discipleship our Lord gives two parables showing that one should consider well the step when he would enter upon discipleship to him. This section closes with another stroke at the Jews. They had been the salt of the earth, but now, since they had lost their savor, they were fit only for the refuse heaps of the world.
QUESTIONS

1. What is the relation between the parable of the barren fig tree and the preceding teaching on the necessity of repentance?
2. Explain the meaning of this parable and show its connection with the incident of cursing the barren fig tree and the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. Give an account of the healing in the synagogue (Luk 13:10-17 ) and the controversy growing out of it.
4. What is the meaning of the two parables, the mustard seed and the leaven?
5. Give an account of Jesus’ controversy with the Jews in Solomon’s porch.
6. What great and consoling doctrine here is taught by Christ and how is it here set forth?
7. What important question raised in Luk 13:22-35 and why is it important?
8. What can you say of the general interest in this question and the causes for it?
9. In what spirit should we approach the solution of such problems, and with what assurance may we come to them in such a spirit?
10. In what particular does this passage remind us of the Sermon on the Mount?
11. What is the first lesson from this comparison with the Sermon on the Mount, and what is the variant setting of conditions and circumstances?
12. To whom does the “few” of Mat 7:14 refer and what is the proof?
13. Where do we find and what a true parallel to Luk 13:29 ?
14. What was the testimony of the prophets on this question, how may we express the whole matter, and what was the testimony of Rev_7:2-17; 21-22?
15. Contrast a Jewish opinion just before Christ was born and a Christian opinion of the present time on this point.
16. When, perhaps, will most of the elect be saved, and what are the conditions then conducive to their salvation?
17. What prompted the questioner here to ask this question and what is the evidence?
18. What is the implied rebuke of the Saviour here? Discuss.
19. What is here taught as to personal exertion in one’s salvation? Discuss,
20. Will all who strive to enter be able to do so? Why? Discuss and illustrate.
21. What other limitation here and what is the door?
22. What is meant by the door being shut? Discuss.
23. Then what is our Lord’s answer to the question?
24. What image of heaven is here presented? Illustrate.
25. What can you say of the attractions of heaven here pictured?
28. What is the contrast with this condition of the saved as represented in the lost, and what will then constitute the horrors of the lost? Illustrate.
27. What warning came to Jesus just here from certain of the Pharisees, what his reply and why?
28. What sentence did he here pronounce and what great prophecy did he give in this connection?
29. What issue arose when Jesus dined with the Pharisee (Luk 14:1-24 ), how did Jesus anticipate their objection and how did he defend the act afterward?
30. What is the parable of the seats of honor, and what does it illustrate?
31. What is the second parable growing out of this occasion and what its lesson?
32. What is the parable of the great supper and what in detail does it illustrate?
33. What is our Lord’s teaching on discipleship and what is the meaning of his language in this instance?
34. How does our Lord illustrate the caution one should have when he enters upon discipleship to him?
35. What is the meaning and application of Christ’s illustration of the salt here?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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. , 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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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 , 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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

22. ] This feast had become usual since the time when Judas Maccabus purified the temple from the profanations of Antiochus. It was held on Chisleu (December) 25, and seven following days: see 1Ma 4:41-59 ; 2Ma 10:1-8 ; Jos. Antt. xii. 7. 7.
. ] it was winter (not ‘ stormy weather ,’ as Lampe, alli [149] .: 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. . He says, Antt. xx. 9. 7, that it was an original work of Solomon, which had remained from the former temple.
[149] alli = some cursive mss.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 10:22-39 . Sayings of Jesus at the Feast of Dedication .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Joh 10:22 . . The (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 ). . The feast might be celebrated elsewhere, and the place may be specified because Jesus had been absent from Jerusalem and now returned. , 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. [better ].
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 10:22-30
22At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; 23it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. 24The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:22 “the feast of the Dedication” Josephus calls this the “Festival of Lights.” It is known in our day as Hanukkah. It was an eight-day feast that occurred around the middle of December. It celebrates the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem after the military victory of Judas Maccabeus in 164 B.C. In 168 B.C., Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was a Seleucid leader, tried to force the Jews into Hellenistic practices (cf. Dan 8:9-14). He turned the Temple in Jerusalem into a pagan shrine with even an altar to Zeus in the Holy Place. Judas Maccabeus, one of several sons of the priest of Modin, defeated this Syrian overlord and cleansed and rededicated the Temple (cf. 1Ma 4:36-59; 2Ma 1:18).
John uses the feasts of Judaism as occasion for Jesus to use their symbolism to reveal Himself to the Jewish leadership, the citizens of Jerusalem, and the crowds of pilgrims (cf. chapters 7-11).
“the portico of Solomon” This was a covered area along the eastern side of the Court of the Women where Jesus taught. Josephus said it had survived the Babylonian destruction of 586 B.C.
Joh 10:23 “it was winter” This is an eyewitness detail.
Joh 10:24 “If” This is a first class conditional sentence which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. There are several first class conditional sentences in this context (cf. Joh 10:24; Joh 10:35; Joh 10:37-38). This usage in Joh 10:24 shows how this construction can be used in a literary sense. These Pharisees did not really believe Jesus was the Messiah; they were baiting him.
“tell us plainly” There are several things to discuss in this verse. First, Jesus taught in parables, figurative language, and ambiguous dualistic statements. This crowd in the Temple wanted Him to express Himself clearly. See Special Topic: Parrhsia at Joh 7:4.
Second, the Jews of Jesus’ day did not expect the Messiah to be Deity incarnate. Jesus had seemingly alluded to His oneness with God on several occasions (cf. Joh 8:56-59), but in this context they are asking specifically about the Messiah. The Jews expected this Anointed One to act like Moses (cf. Deu 18:15; Deu 18:19). Jesus had done exactly that in chapter six. His works fulfilled OT prophecies, especially the healing of the blind (chapter 9). They had all the evidence needed. The problem was that Jesus did not fit their traditional military, nationalistic expectations of the Messiah.
Joh 10:25 “the works that I do in My Father’s Name, these testify of Me” Jesus asserted that His actions verified His claims (cf. Joh 2:23; Joh 5:36; Joh 10:25; Joh 10:38; Joh 14:11; Joh 15:24).
Joh 10:26 What a shocking statement!
Joh 10:28 “I give eternal life to them” Eternal life is both characterized by quantity and quality. It is the life of the new age. It is available now by faith in Christ (cf. Joh 3:36; Joh 11:24-26).
“they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand” This is a double negative with an Aorist middle subjunctive. This is one of the strongest passages on the security of the believer anywhere in the NT (cf. Joh 6:39). It is obvious that the only one who can separate us from God’s love is ourselves (cf. Rom 8:38-39; Gal 5:2-4). Assurance (see Special Topic at 1Jn 5:13) must be balanced with perseverance (see Special Topic at Joh 8:31). Assurance must be based on the character and actions of the Triune God.
The Gospel of John asserts the assurance of those who continue to put their faith in Christ. It starts with an initial decision of repentance and faith and issues in lifestyle faith. The theological problem is when this personal relationship is perverted into a product that we possess (“once saved, always saved”). Continuing faith is the evidence of a true salvation (cf. Hebrews, James, and 1 John).
Joh 10:29
NASB, NKJV”My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all”
NRSV”What my Father has given me is greater than all else”
TEV”What my Father has given me is greater than everything”
NJB”The Father, for what he has given me, is greater than anyone”
The question is what is the object of the phrase, “greater than”: (1) the people God has given Jesus (NRSV, TEV) or (2) God Himself (NASB, NKJV, NJB). The second part of this verse implies someone may try to snatch Jesus’ followers. Theologically the second option seems best. See Special Topic on Assurance at Joh 6:37.
This is a wonderful passage on the assurance of the believer based on the power of the Father! The security of the believer, like all biblical truths, is presented in a tension-filled, covenantal pattern. Believers’ hope and assurance of salvation is in the character of the Triune God, His mercy and grace. However, the believer must continue in faith. Salvation begins with an initial Spirit-led decision of repentance and faith. It must also issue in continuing repentance, faith, obedience, and perseverance! Salvation is not a product (life insurance, ticket to heaven), but a growing personal relationship with God through Christ.
The conclusive evidence of a right relationship with God is a changed and changing life of faith and service (cf. Matthew 7). There is such little biblical evidence for carnal Christians (cf. 1 Corinthians 2-3). The norm is Christlikeness now, not just heaven when we die. There is no lack of biblical security and assurance to those who are growing, serving, even struggling with sin. But, no fruit, no root! Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, but true salvation will issue in “good works” (cf. Eph 2:10; Jas 2:14-26).
Joh 10:30-33 “I and the Father are one. . .the Jews picked up stones again to stone Him” This is just one of the strong statements of Jesus’ Messiahship and Deity (cf. Joh 1:1-14; Joh 8:58; Joh 14:8-10, esp. Joh 17:21-26, which also uses the word “one”). The Jews understood completely what He was saying and counted it as blasphemy (cf. Joh 10:33; Joh 8:59). They were going to stone Him based on Lev 24:16.
In the early controversy over the person of Christ (i.e., Arius – the first born; Athanasius – fully God) Joh 10:30; Joh 14:9 were used often by Athanasius (see The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 444). For “Arianism” see the Glossary.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

And. Figure of speech Chronographia. App-6.
at. Greek. en. App-104.
the feast of the dedication. Greek. enkainia = renewal, from kainos, new, i.e. the cleansing of Ezra’s temple after its defilement by Antiochus Epiphanes, 25th Chislen (= December), 164 B.C. Compare 1 Macc. 4:52 – 59.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

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 , 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.
Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 10:22. , Feast of Dedication) instituted by Judas Maccabus: 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.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 10:22
Joh 10:22
And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem:-Herod the Great had rebuilt the temple-was forty-six years in restoring it-and a feast celebrating that dedication was observed to perpetuate it.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Reciprocal: Lev 23:2 – the feasts Num 7:10 – dedicating 1Ki 8:63 – dedicated 2Ch 7:5 – dedicated Ezr 6:16 – the dedication Mar 3:22 – He hath
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2
This dedication was not any part of the law of Moses. A wicked king of Syria named Antiochus Ephiphanes, drove the priests from the altar of sacrifices at Jerusalem and burned the flesh of swine on it. After some years of struggle, a zealous Jew by the name of Judas Maccabaeus got possession of the altar. He cleansed it and dedicated it anew to the lawful service. In honor of that event the Jews established a feast that was celebrated annually. John refers to it only as a matter of date, indicating the occasion on which the things took place of which he was writing. This sacrilege by the wicked king is predicted and commented upon at Dan 8:9-12, in volume 4 of the Old Testament Commentary.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
[It was the feast of the Dedication.] I. The rise and original of this feast must be fetched from the story, 1Ma 4:52; etc., of which we have noted something already. The Jewish masters have these passages about it:
“They were seized with such infinite pleasure in the restoration of their sacred rites, being, after so long a time, so unexpectedly possessed of their religion again, that they bound it by a law to posterity, that they should celebrate the restitution of their sacred rites by a feast of eight days’ continuance. And from that time to this do we still celebrate this feast, calling it by the name of ‘Lights’; giving that name to this feast, as I suppose, because we obtained such a liberty so much beyond all hope.”
One would believe that the name only of lights; or candles; was given to this feast: I say a name only; for we have no mention here of the ‘lighting of candles.’ One would believe also that the eight days decreed for the celebration of this feast was done after the pattern of the eight days’ feast of Tabernacles: but you will find in the Talmudic authors that it is far otherwise, and they have a cunning way of talking concerning it.
“The Rabbins have a tradition: From the five-and-twentieth day of the month Chisleu there are eight days of the Encaenia [or feast of Dedication], in which time it is not lawful either to weep or fast. For when the Greeks entered into the Temple, they defiled all the oil that was there. But when the kingdom of the Asmoneans had conquered them, they sought and could not find but one single vial of oil that had been laid up under the seal of the chief priest; nor was there enough in it but to light for one day. There was a great miracle: for they lighted up the lamps from that oil for eight days together: so that, the year after, they instituted the space of eight days for the solemnizing that feast.”
Maimonides relates the same things, and adds more: “Upon this occasion the wise men of that generation appointed, that eight days from the 25th of the month Chisleu should be set apart for days of rejoicing and the Hallel; and that they should light up candles at the doors of every house each evening of those days, to keep up the memory of that miracle. Those days are called Dedication; and it is forbidden upon all those days either to weep or fast, as in the days of Purim,” etc.
Again: “How many candles do they light? It is commanded that every house should set up at least one, let the inhabitants there be more or one only. But he that does honour to the command sets up his candles according to the number of the persons that are in the house. And he again that does more honour to it still sets up one candle for every person in the house the first night, and doubles it the second night. For example, if there be ten persons in the house, the first night there are ten candles lighted; the second night, twenty; the third night, thirty; so that on the eighth night it comes to fourscore.”
It would be too tedious to transcribe what he relates about singing the Hallel upon that feast: the place where the candle is fixed, which ordinarily is without doors, but in time of danger or persecution it is within, etc. Let what I have already quoted suffice, with the addition of this one instance more:
“The wife of Tarchinus (whose bones may they be crushed!) brought forth a son the evening of the ninth day of the month Ab, and then all Israel mourned. The child died upon the feast of Dedication. Then said the Israelites, ‘Shall we light up candles, or not?’ They said, ‘We will light them, come what will come.’ So they lighted them. Upon which, there were some that went and accused them before the wife of Tarchin, saying, ‘The Jews mourned when thou broughtest forth a son; and when that son died they set up candles.’ ” Who this Tarquinus or Tarquinius was, whether they meant the emperor Trajan or some other, we will not make any inquiry, nor is it tanti. However, the story goes on and tells us, that the woman, calling her husband, accused the Jews, stirring him up to revenge, which he executed accordingly by a slaughter amongst them.
[The feast of the Dedication.] In the title of the thirtieth Psalm Psa 30:1, the Greek interpreters translate Dedication; by which the Jewish masters seem to understand the dedication of the Temple; whereas really it was no other than the lustration and cleansing of David’s house after Absalom had polluted it by his wickedness and filthiness: which indeed we may not unfitly compare with the purging again of the Temple after that the Gentiles had polluted it.
[At Jerusalem.] It was at Jerusalem the feast of the Dedication. Not as the Passover, Pentecost, and feast of Tabernacles, were wont to be at Jerusalem, because those feasts might not be celebrated in any other place: but the Encaenia was kept everywhere throughout the whole land.
They once proclaimed a fast within the feast of Dedication at Lydda.
The feast of Dedication at Lydda? This was not uncustomary, for that feast was celebrated in any place: but the fast in the time of that feast, this was uncustomary.
“One upon his journey, upon whose account they set up a candle at his own house, hath no need to light it for himself in the place where he sojourneth”: for in what country soever he sojourns, there the feast of Dedication and lighting up of candles is observed; and if those of his own household would be doing that office for him, he is bound to make provision accordingly, and take care that they may do it.
Maimonides goes on; “The precept about the lights in the feast of Dedication is very commendable; and it is necessary that every one should rub up his memory in this matter, that he may make known the great miracle, and contribute towards the praises of God, and the acknowledgment of those wonders he doth amongst us. If any one hath not wherewithal to eat, unless of mere alms, let him beg, or sell his garments to buy oil and lights for this feast. If he have only one single farthing; and should be in suspense whether he should spend it in consecrating the day; or setting up lights, let him rather spend it in oil for the candles than in wine for consecration of the day. For when as they are both the prescription of the scribes, it were better to give the lights of the Encaenia the preference, because you therein keep up the remembrance of the miracle.”
Now what was this miracle? It was the multiplication of the oil. The feast was instituted in commemoration of their Temple and religion being restored to them: the continuance of the feast for eight days was instituted in commemoration of that miracle: both by the direction of the scribes, when there was not so much as one prophet throughout the whole land.
“There were eighty-five elders, above thirty of which were prophets too, that made their exceptions against the feast of Purim, ordained by Esther and Mordecai, as some kind of innovation against the law.” And yet that feast was but to be of two days’ continuance. It is a wonder then how this feast of Dedication; the solemnity of which was to be kept up for eight days together, that had no other foundation of authority but that of the scribes, should be so easily swallowed by them.
Josephus, as also the Book of Maccabees, tells us, that this was done about the hundred and forty-eighth year of the Seleucidae: and at that time, nay, a great while before, the doctrine of traditions and authority of the traditional scribes had got a mighty sway in that nation. So that every decree of the Sanhedrim was received as oracular, nor was there any the least grudge or complaint against it. So that, though the traditional masters could not vindicate the institution of such a feast from any tradition exhibited to Moses upon mount Sinai, yet might they invent something as traditional to prove the lawfulness of such an institution.
Who had the presidency in the Sanhedrim at this time cannot be certainly determined. That which is told of Joshua Ben Perachiah, how he fled from Janneus the king, carries some probability along with it, that Joses Ben Joezer of Zeredai, and Joses Ben Jochanan of Jerusalem, to whom Joshua Ben Perachiah and Nittai the Arbelite succeeded in their chairs, sat president and vice-president at that time in the Sanhedrim. But this is not of much weight, that we should tire ourselves in such an inquiry.
The masters tell us (but upon what authority it is obscure), that the work of the tabernacle was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Chisleu (that is, the very day of the month of which we are now speaking); “but it was folded up till the first day of the month Nisan, and then set up.”
[And it was winter.] The eight days begun from the 25th of the month Chisleu fell in with the winter solstice. Whence, meeting with that in the Targumist upon 1Ch 11:22; I question whether I should render it the shortest day; or a short day (i.e. One of the short winter days), viz. the tenth of the month Tebeth; if he did not calculate rather according to our than the Jewish calendar.
The Rabbins (as we have already observed upon Joh 5:35) distinguish their winter months into winter and mid-winter; intimating, as it should seem, the more remiss and more intense cold. Half Chisleu, all Tebeth, and half Shebat was the winter. Ten days therefore of the winter had passed when on the 25th of the month Chisleu the feast of the Dedication came in.
It was winter, and Jesus walked in the porch. He walked there because it was winter; that he might get and keep himself warm: and perhaps he chose Solomon’s porch to walk in, either that he might have something to do with the fathers of the Sanhedrim who sat there; or else that he might correct and chastise the buyers and sellers who had their shops in that place.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Joh 10:22. There came to pass at that time the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: it was winter. With these words we enter on a new scene, where the Evangelist first sets before us the outward circumstances, expressing them, after his usual manner, by three clauses. Where and how the weeks intervening between the feast of Tabernacles in chap. 7 and the feast now mentioned were spent John does not inform us. Once more he shows clearly that his intention is not to give a continuous narrative; for, though he has clearly defined two points of time (the two festivals), he records in the interval events of but two or three days. The festival here spoken of was instituted by Judas Maccabeus, B.C. 165. For three years the sanctuary had been desolate, and on the altar of burnt-offering had been placed an altar for idol-worship. After the victory gained at Bethsura (or Bethzur), the first thought of Judas was to cleanse and dedicate the sanctuary which had been profaned. The altar of burnt-offering was taken down, and a new altar built; and all 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 Cisleu, with mirth and gladness (1Ma 4:59). The date would correspond to a late day in our month of December. We do not find in the following verses any words of our Lord which directly relate to this festival; but those readers who have noted how carefully the Evangelist points to the idea of every Jewish feast as fulfilled in Jesus will not suppose that there is an exception here. Having heard the words of chap. Joh 2:19, he could not but associate his Lord with the temple: and a feast which commemorated the reconstruction of the temple must have had great significance in his eyes. The mention of the time of year connects itself naturally with the choice, spoken of in the next verse, of the covered walk (Solomons Porch); but the mode in which the fact is mentioned recalls at once chap. Joh 13:30, where every one acknowledges that the closing words are more than a note of time: the night there and the winter here are felt by the narrator to be true emblems of the events which he records.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

FEAST OF THE DEDICATION
The Feast of the Dedication took place midway between that of the Tabernacles and the Passover, or some time corresponding to our December or January. It is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, and it is not positively known just what it commemorated.
Where Jesus had been in the meantime is not revealed except that it is not stated that He returned to Galilee. We dwell on this period to call attention to the same features as in the previous one, viz: the putting forth of the boldest claims on Jesus part, followed by conflict with His opponents. For the claims consult Joh 10:28 and Joh 10:30, and the conflict, Joh 10:31 and Joh 10:39. What was the sequel of this appearance so far as Jesus was concerned (Joh 10:40-41)? Notice that in the face of all the criticism and opposition, the disciples continually increased (Joh 10:42).
We should not leave this without a further word on Joh 10:30, which literally translated is, I and My Father are one thing. Christ does not say One in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. That is, He and His Father are not one in Person, but one in nature, power, will. It silences those who say there is but one Person in the Godhead, and those also who say that the Son is inferior to the Father.
Our Lords defense of this language against the charge of blasphemy (Joh 10:33-36), is an argument from a lesser to a greater. In Psalms 82, the inspired writer is speaking of the position and duties of princes and rulers, whose elevation above other men and consequent responsibility was so great, that compared with them, they might be called gods. If then no fault is found with them, who receive this honor by grace, how can He deserve blame who possesses this honor by nature? Sanctified (Joh 10:34) means set apart, and the verse teaches the eternal generation of Christ. The Jews did not understand Christ to claim to be god in the sense of Psalms 82 or they would not have threatened to stone Him; but God in the sense of Deity, and hence Christs acceptance of that claim, as in chapter 5, is an assertion of that fact on His part.
THE HOME IN BETHANY
We now come to chapter 11, where we find Jesus in Bethany. Here occurs the raising of Lazarus. In the synoptics we read of the raising of Jairus daughter and the son of the widow of Nain. In the first case death had just ensued, and in the second but a single day had intervened. Here, however, Lazarus had been four days dead. Of course, with God it is no harder to restore life in the one case than in either of the others, and yet all must be impressed with the gradation of difficulty illustrated in the three, and that the most difficult, humanly speaking, should be recorded only in Johns Gospel. This, like so many other features, shows the purpose of this gospel to set forth Jesus in the highest aspect of all, that of the Son of God the Son of God giving life to the world. What a wonderful declaration that in Joh 11:25!
Speaking of this miracle in general terms, Bishop Ryle makes three good points: (1) it was intended to supply the Jews with one more incontrovertible proof that Jesus was the Messiah (compare again their question in Joh 10:24), (2) it was meant to prepare their minds for our Lords own resurrection. They could not say when the tomb of Jesus was found empty, that His resurrection was an impossibility; and (3) it is the most credible of all our Lords miracles, and supported by the most incontrovertible proof.
QUESTIONS
1. When did the Feast of Dedication take place?
2. Explain Joh 10:30.
3. Explain Joh 10:33-36.
4. With what circumstances are we impressed in comparing the raising
of Lazarus with the other two restorations to life?
5. Quote from memory Joh 11:25-26.
6. What three good points on this miracle are made by Bishop Ryle?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

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.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 10:22-23. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication Or, as 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 Maccabus, (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 Solomons 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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 Gospela strange circumstancesby 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).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

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

Joh 10:22-42. The Feast of the Dedication.Mg., At that time suggests a closer connexion with what precedes than the old reading And. But in any case the notes of time are not precise. The Feast of the Dedication (p. 104) was instituted to commemorate the restoration (p. 607) of the Temple services in 165 by the Maccabees after its desecration for three years by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Ma 4:36-59, 2Ma 10:1-8, Josephus, Ant. XII. vii. 7). It lasted for eight days from December 25, and according to Josephus was called Lights, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us. According to 2Ma 1:9 it was called the Tabernacles of the month Chisleu, many of the customs of Tabernacles being reproduced at it. For the Porch of Solomon, cf. Act 3:11*. The Jews, either incited to hope by Jesus teaching, or wishing to discredit Him with the crowd, demand a clear pronouncement of His Messianic claims. We naturally compare the reticence on this subject implied in the Synoptic story. He replies that doubt is due only to their unbelief. The works which the Father has enabled Him to do are adequate proof. Their unbelief shows that they are not true followers. His own sheep know and follow, and gain the life which He has to give. And the Father who gave them is greater than all; no one can seize them from Him (Joh 10:29). The better-attested reading of mg. is more difficult. It seems to refer to the true followers given to the Son, but how can they, even as forming a unity (Westcott), be said to be greater than all? Perhaps it should be explained as carrying on the thought of Joh 10:25. The power to do the works, given by God to Jesus, is almighty. And it is given, no one can grasp it for himself; cf. Php 2:6. In respect of these works Father and Son are one. The Father works through the Son, the Son only in the Fathers power. In the words of Joh 10:30, as used by Jesus, there is no necessity to see any idea of metaphysical oneness of nature, however the author himself may have interpreted them. To the Jews, however, the claim implied in them seemed blasphemy. They take up stones. Jesus appeals to what He has done for men. For which of such works would they stone Him? To their obvious answer (Joh 10:33) He replies with an argument drawn from Scripture, your law (cf. Joh 12:34, Joh 15:25), as the author calls Psa 82:6. If Scripture calls men, commissioned by God to act for Him, gods, one whom the Father has set apart (Jer 1:5) and sent (Isa 6:8) cannot be accused of blasphemy for calling Himself Gods Son. The meaning of the phrase the word of God came is doubtful. It may only mean the passage cited, those referred to in Psalms 82. More probably it means all to whom Gods message came empowering them to act for Him. What He does, as Gods Messenger, is the true test of His union with the Father. Again they try to seize Him, but He escapes. Recognising His danger in Jerusalem He withdraws to Pera, the scene of Johns former baptism. Many who follow recall, in the old surroundings, Johns witness to Him, supported now by works such as the Baptist never did. And so they come to fuller faith. The retirement to Pera is supported by Mar 10:1, and perhaps also by Lk., who in Joh 13:31 ff. records incidents in Herods dominions (? Pera), after He has been near Jerusalem (Joh 10:38 ff.).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 22
The feast of the dedication. This feast commemorated the renovation and purifying of the temple, after it had been desolated and polluted by foreign armies.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the {h} dedication, and it was winter.
(h) The feast of the dedication was instituted by Judas Maccabeus and his brethren after the restoring of God’s true religion, by the casting out of Antiochus’ garrison.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

8. The confrontation at the feast of Dedication 10:22-42
The present section of the fourth Gospel is strongly Christological and focuses on Jesus’ identity. In this subdivision of the text Jesus presented Himself as the Messiah (Joh 10:22-30) and as the Son of God (Joh 10:31-39). This resulted in the climax of hostility against Him.
"It becomes clear that people must either recognize that Jesus stands in such a relation to the Father as no one else ever did, or else reject him entirely." [Note: Morris, p. 458.]
The final few verses are transitional and describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Jerusalem and the fact that many people believed on Him (Joh 10:40-42).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah 10:22-30
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

"At that time" (NASB) is a general reference to the proximity of the feast of Dedication and the events narrated in the previous pericope. It does not mean that the events in the preceding section occurred exactly before that feast. The NIV "Then came" gives the sense better.
". . . His Peraean Ministry, which extended from after the Feast of Tabernacles to the week preceding the last Passover, was, so to speak, cut in half by the brief visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication. Thus, each part of the Peraean Ministry would last about three months; the first, from about the end of September to the month of December; the second, from that period to the beginning of April. Of these six months we have (with the solitary exception of St. Matthew xii. 22-45), no other account than that furnished by St. Luke, although, as usually, the Jerusalem and Judaean incidents of it are described by St. John. After that we have the account of His journey to the last Passover, recorded, with more or less detail, in the three Synoptic Gospels." [Note: Edersheim, 2:195.]
The eight-day feast of Dedication, now called Chanukah (or Hanukkah), the feast of Lights, was not one of the feasts prescribed in the Mosaic Law. The Jews instituted it during the inter-testamental period (cf. 1Ma 4:36-59; 2Ma 1:9; 2Ma 1:18; 2Ma 10:1-8).
"Christ’s testimony at Hanukkah, and its place in the Gospel of John, which stresses the theme of light, is a testimony to Christians that Hanukkah emphasizes His great work of providing salvation to a spiritually blind world." [Note: Jerry R. Lancaster and R. Larry Overstreet, "Jesus’ Celebration of Hanukkah in John 10," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):332-33.]
It commemorated the purification and rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus ("Judas the Hammer") on the twenty-fifth of Chislev (modern late December and early January), 164 B.C. The Syrian invader Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) had profaned the temple three years earlier by replacing the brazen altar with a pagan one on which he offered a pig as a sacrifice to Jupiter. Antiochus attempted to Hellenize Judea, but the Jewish patriot Judas Maccabeus was able to lead a guerilla revolt that has borne his name ever since. After three years he defeated the Syrians and liberated the Jews.
"It was the last great deliverance that the Jews had known, and therefore it must have been in people’s minds a symbol of their hope that God would again deliver his people." [Note: Morris, p. 459.]
In warmer weather Jesus would have taught in one of the open-air courtyards of the temple. Because it was winter He taught what follows in Solomon’s colonnade on the temple courtyard’s eastern side. Perhaps John mentioned this detail because it was in Solomon’s colonnade that the first Christians gathered regularly (Act 3:11; Act 5:12). One writer opined that John may have included reference to winter because of the spiritual climate, namely, the generally frigid spirits of the Jews. [Note: Beasley-Murray, p. 173.] John may have made other references to times and seasons with such allusions in mind (e.g., Joh 13:30).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

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).
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles