Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 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.
29. which gave them ] Better, which hath given them. Comp. Joh 17:6; Joh 17:24. This enforces the previous assertion. ‘To snatch them out of My hand, he must snatch them out of My Father’s hand; and My Father is greater than all:’ even than the Son (Joh 14:28). But the reading is not certain. The most probable text gives, that which the Father hath given Me is greater than all. The unity of the Church is strength invincible.
out of my Father’s hand ] The better reading is, out of the Father’s hand. ‘Out of His hand’ would have sufficed; but ‘Father’ is repeated for emphasis.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Which gave them me – See Joh 6:37.
Is greater – Is more powerful.
Than all – Than all others – men, angels, devils. The word includes everything – everything that could attempt to pluck them away from God; in other words, it means that God is supreme. It implies, further, that God will keep them, and will so control all other beings and things that they shall be safe.
None is able – None has power to do it. In these two verses we are taught the following important truths:
1.That Christians are given by God the Father to Christ.
2.That Jesus gives to them eternal life, or procures by his death and intercession, and imparts to them by his Spirit, that religion which shall result in eternal life.
3.That both the Father and the Son are pledged to keep them so that they shall never fall away and perish. It would be impossible for any language to teach more explicitly that the saints will persevere.
4.That there is no power in man or devils to defeat the purpose of the Redeemer to save his people. We also see our safety, if we truly, humbly, cordially, and daily commit ourselves to God the Saviour. In no other way can we have evidence that we are his people than by such a persevering resignation of ourselves to him, to obey his law, and to follow him through evil report or good report. If we do that we are safe. If we do not that we have no evidence of piety, and are not, cannot be safe.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 29. My Father – is greater than all] More powerful than all the united energies of men and demons. He who loves God must be happy; and he who fears him need fear nothing on this side eternity.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
All that are my sheep became so by my Fathers donation and gift, so as my Father is equally with myself concerned in the preservation of them to that happy end, to which he hath ordained and designed them. Those that would pluck them out of my hand, and deprive them of that eternal life which I will give them, must be too strong, not for me alone, but for my Father also; which none is, for who can be too strong for omnipotence?
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
29. My Father, which gave themme(See on Joh 6:37-39).
is greater than allwithwhom no adverse power can contend. It is a general expression of anadmitted truth, and what follows shows for what purpose it wasuttered, “and none is able to pluck them out of My Father’shand.” The impossibility of true believers being lost, in themidst of all the temptations which they may encounter, does notconsist in their fidelity and decision, but is founded upon the powerof God. Here the doctrine of predestination is presented in itssublime and sacred aspect; there is a predestination of the holy,which is taught from one end of the Scriptures to the other; not,indeed, of such a nature that an “irresistible grace”compels the opposing will of man (of course not), but so thatthat will of man which receives and loves the commands of God isproduced only by God’s grace (OLSHAUSENatestimony all the more valuable, being given in spite of Lutheranprejudice).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
My Father which gave [them] me,…. So the sheep came to be Christ’s, and to be in his hand; the Father gave them to him, put them into his hands, and made them his care and charge:
is greater than all; than all gods, than all beings, than all creatures, angels and men, and than all the enemies of his people; this must be allowed: the Vulgate Latin version, and so some of the ancients read, “what my Father gave to me, is greater than all”; meaning, that the church given to him, and built on him, is stronger than all its enemies:
and none is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand; so that these sheep have a double security; they are in the hands of Christ, and they are in the hands of the Father of Christ; wherefore could it be thought, which ought not to be, that they could be plucked out of Christ’s hands, yet it can never be imagined, that any can pluck them out of the hands of God the Father; and there is no more reason to think that they can be plucked out of the hands of the one, than there is that they can be plucked out of the hands of the other, as is clear from what follows in Joh 10:30; see the Apocrypha:
“But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them.” (Wisdom 3:1)
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Which (). Who. If (which) is correct, we have to take as nominative absolute or independent, “As for my Father.”
Is greater than all ( ). If we read . But Aleph B L W read and A B Theta have . The neuter seems to be correct (Westcott and Hort). But is it? If so, the meaning is: “As for my Father, that which he hath given me is greater than all.” But the context calls for … with as the subject of . The greatness of the Father, not of the flock, is the ground of the safety of the flock. Hence the conclusion that “no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all [ , ] . There is considerable confusion here about the reading. Westcott and Hort and Tischendorf read oJ pathr mou (Tischendorf rejects mou) o dedwken moi pantwn meizon ejstin. That which the Father (or my Father) hath given me is greater than all. Rev. gives this in the margin. For gave, render hath given.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “My Father, which gave them me,” (ho pater mou ho dedoken moi) “My Father who has given (them) to me,” Joh 14:28, those who came of their own volition, as He drew them by His Spirit, wooed or convicted them of sin, as taught of the Lord of their sins, guilt, and His call to repentance, Joh 6:37; Joh 6:45; Pro 1:19-31; Isa 55:6-7; note His giving them the Son was always and is the same, by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, Act 10:43; 2Pe 3:9; Rev 19:10; Rev 22:17.
2) “Is greater than all; (panton meizon estin) “He is (exists) greater than all,” all other powers, persons, gods, and things, Psa 115:4-9; 1Co 8:6; Joh 1:3; Heb 1:2.
3) “And no man is able,” (kai oudeis dunatai) “And no one at all exists who is able,” is dynamic enough at all, Joh 10:10; Joh 10:14; Joh 10:28; Joh 11:26; Isa 32:17; Jud 1:1. Not only has Jesus given to every believer in Him eternal life, spiritual life without end, but He has explained that it means they are (exist as) preserved forever! This is based on His ability to preserve and His pledge that He would, Joh 6:37.
4) “To pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” (harpazein ek tes cheiros tou patros) “To harpoon them out of and away from the Father’s hand,” protection, security, or care, no matter how anxious, strong, or crafty, any man or demon may be. Jesus and the Father are one, in purpose and power, and both are able and have pledged to preserve all who come to Him by faith in Jesus Christ, in a sealed secure state, into eternity, Joh 5:24; 2Co 5:21; Rom 3:14-15; Gal 4:4-5; Joh 3:16; Rom 1:16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(29) My Father, which gave them me (better, hath given them Me), is greater than all.For the thought that they are given by the Father, comp. Note on Joh. 6:37. Here our version has rightly made no limiting addition to all (comp. last verse). In the width of the word, which extends to every creature and to every power, and even to the Son in His subordination to the Father, the Father is thought of as greater than all. Again the thought mounts with each succeeding sentence: (1) None shall pluck them out of My hand; (2) They are My Fathers gifts, and He is greater than all; (3) None shall pluck them out of My Fathers hand.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
29. My Father greater than all All this surety is based in a pledged Omnipotence. God, who gave his Son, and gave all true believers to him, is the infinite surety that no believer shall miss eternal life.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“My Father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand’.
This security is made all the more certain because the One Who is Almighty, His Father, Who is ‘greater than all’, has given them to Him and watches over them. No one can snatch them from His hand. Those who are truly His and have been destined to receive life as a result of the Father’s choice and gift, are eternally secure. But their certainty lies in the fact that they are hearing His voice and following Him. On the one hand He keeps them safely, but on the other their lives reveal that they are being kept. If the latter is not so, the former must be questioned.
Once again we see here that the Father and the Son act in parallel. He is holding His sheep safely in His hand, and His Father is holding His sheep safely in His hand. The two act as One.
‘Greater than all.’ Whether Satan, the Roman authorities, the Jewish authorities, or whoever might attack His people. God is greater than all put together. (There are a number of minor variations in the ancient authorities on this verse but the general sense is clear).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 10:29-30 . Explanation of the assertion just made, , etc. If in my hand, they are also in the hand of my Father , who is greater than all, so that an , etc. is impossible; I am one with Him.
] sc. . On the import of the words, compare on Joh 6:37 . In characterizing God as the giver of the sheep , Jesus enables us to see how fully He is justified in appealing, as He here does, to the Father.
(see the critical note): something greater , a greater potence. On the neuter here employed, compare Mat 12:6 (Lachmann). See Bernhardy, p. 335; Khner II. p. 45; Dissen ad Dem. de Cor. p. 396 ( ).
] Masculine. Compare , Joh 10:28 , and , Joh 10:29 . Without any limitation: all besides God.
, etc.] Necessary consequence of the , but not setting aside the possibility of losing the grace by one’s own fault , Joh 6:66 .
. . . ]. This expression, . ., is due to the presupposition, flowing out of , that God did not let the sheep out of His hand, i.e . out of His protection and guidance, when He gave them to Christ. But this continued divine protection is really nothing else than the protection of Christ , so far, that is, as the Father is in the Son and works in Him (see Joh 10:37-38 ); hence the latter, as the organ and vehicle of the divine activity in carrying out the Messianic work, is not separated from God, is not a second some one outside and alongside of God; but, by the very nature of the fellowship referred to, one with God (compare Weiss, Lehrbegr . p. 205 f.). Compare on , 1Co 3:8 . God’s hand is therefore His hand in the accomplishment of the work, during the performance of which He administers and carries into execution the power, love, and so forth of God. The unity, therefore, is one of dynamic fellowship, i.e . a unity of action for the realization of the divine decree of redemption; according to which, the Father is in the Son, and moves in Him, so that the Father acts in the things which are done by the Son, and yet is greater than the Son (Joh 14:28 ), because He has commissioned, consecrated, and sent Him. The Arian idea of ethical agreement is insufficient; the reasoning would miss its mark unless unity of power be understood (on which Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, and many others, also Lcke, justly lay emphasis). The orthodox interpretation, which makes it denote unity of essence (Nonnus: ; Augustine: unum , delivers us from Charybdis, that is, from Arius, and sumus from Scylla, that is, from Sabellius), specially defended by Hengstenberg, though rejected even by Calvin as a misuse of the passage, goes beyond the argumentation; at the same time, in view of the metaphysical character of the relation of the Son to the Father, clearly taught elsewhere, and especially in John, the Homoousia, as the essential foundation, must be regarded as presupposed in the fellowship here denoted by .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 29. No man is able to pluck them ] Impostors seek to thrust us from God, Deu 13:5 , and to drag disciples after them, with such violence, as if they would pluck them limb meal (as the word signifies, Act 20:30 ), so to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect, Mat 24:24 . A thing is said to be possible, vel respectu Dei, vel respectu rei, either to honour God or to honour a thing. True grace, in itself considered, is easily separable from him that hath it, who, left to himself also, would soon lose it. But with respect to God, by whose power the saints are kept (as in a strong guard or garrison, , 1Pe 1:5 ), through faith unto salvation, it is impossible that any of his should finally miscarry.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 10:29 . These strong assertions He bases, as always, on the Father’s will and power. . “My Father who has given me these sheep is greater than all: and therefore no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. But this is equivalent to my saying no one can snatch them out of my hand, for I and the Father are one.” . Cf. Joh 17:21-23 , . Bengel says: “ Unum , non solum voluntatis consensu, sed unitate potentiae, adeoque naturae. Nam omnipotentia est attributum naturale; et serino est de unitate Patris et Filii. In his verbis Jesu plus viderunt caeci Judaei, quam hodie vident Antitrinitarii.” But Calvin is right when he denies that the words carry this sense: “Abusi sunt hoc loco veteres ut probarent Christum esse Patri . Neque enim Christus de unitate substantiae disputat, sed de consensu quem cum Patre habet: quicquid scilicet geritur a Christo Patris virtute confirmatum iri.” An ambassador whose demands were contested might quite naturally say: “I and my sovereign are one”; not meaning thereby to claim royal dignity, but only to assert that what he did his sovereign did, that his signature carried his sovereign’s guarantee, and that his pledges would be fulfilled by all the resources of his sovereign. So here, as God’s representative, Jesus introduces the Father’s power as the final guarantee, and claims that in this respect He and the Father are one. Whether this does not involve metaphysical unity is another question. Cf. Tertullian, adv. Praxeam , 22; Hippolytus, c. Noetum , 7, , .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Joh 10:29. , gave) Understand, these sheep.- , greater than all) Greater than all their enemies; greater than the sheep: and (in another sense) greater than even Me; ch. Joh 14:28, My Father is greater than I.-, to snatch) them, the sheep.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 10:29
Joh 10:29
My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all;-God the Father is the provider and protector of all. He had given to Christ all who were willing to follow him. No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. (Joh 6:44-45). Which shows that God gave to Jesus those who had heard and learned of the prophets and were willing to receive him as the Christ.
and no one is able to snatch them out of the Fathers hand.-[No man is able to do it, but the Father can and will if we cease to follow Jesus. (Joh 15:2). None shall ever fall away from want of divine grace, or the power of adversaries, but because they cease to hear and follow Jesus. By our own sins we are separated from God. (Isa 59:2).]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
which: Joh 6:37, Joh 17:2, Joh 17:6, Joh 17:9, Joh 17:11
is greater: Joh 14:28, Exo 18:11, Psa 145:3, Dan 4:3, Mal 1:14
Reciprocal: Gen 27:33 – yea Gen 28:15 – for I Deu 33:3 – all his saints Deu 33:27 – thrust Psa 119:117 – Hold Psa 125:2 – the Lord Pro 2:8 – keepeth Son 1:7 – thou feedest Mat 7:21 – my Joh 2:16 – my Joh 8:53 – thou greater Joh 16:15 – General Joh 17:7 – are Rom 5:10 – we shall Rom 15:6 – the Eph 1:3 – God Eph 3:20 – able 2Ti 1:9 – which Heb 2:13 – which Heb 2:18 – he is Heb 7:25 – he is 1Jo 3:20 – God
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
The Father will not hold a sheep regardless of whether it is faithful and satisfied with the spiritual pasturage which He provides for him. But if the sheep is thus true to the Father, then no man can get that sheep out of His grasp.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 10:29-30. My Father, which hath given them me, is greater than all; and no one is able to pluck out of the Fathers hand. I and the Father are one. The apparent object of these words is to establish more completely the safety of His sheep. But in answering this purpose they also answer a still higher end; they are a revelation of Jesus Himself. In effect they give a reply to the question of the Jews, but such a reply as only the heart prepared to listen to the truth will receive. Jesus has spoken of My sheep; they are His by reason of His Fathers gift. The Father who has given will maintain the gift: and He is greater than all who could seek to snatch away the sheep,none can snatch aught out of the hand of the Father. The progress of the thought is perfectly simple, but the transition from my Father to the Father is full of meaning. The letter name is fitly used, since here the axiom of Divine Almightiness is expressed; the same name, moreover, is most appropriate in a passage which traces the development of Gods purpose to make men His sons through His Son. Jesus has used the same words of Himself and of the Father; no one shall pluck them out of my hand,no one can pluck out of the Fathers hand. He might have left His hearers to draw the certain inference, but He will so far grant their request as to tell this plainly: I and the Father are one. There is perhaps nothing in this saying that goes beyond the revelation of chap. 5; but its terseness and its simple force give it a new significance. Unity of action, purpose, power, may be what the context chiefly requires us to recognise as expressed in these words; but the impression which was made upon the Jews (Joh 10:31), the fuller statement of Joh 10:38, the analogy of chap. 5 and of expressions (still more closely parallel) in chap. 17 forbid us to depart from the most ancient Christian exposition which sees in this saying of Jesus no less than a claim of unity of essence with the Father.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 29, 30. My Father who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand; 30 I and the Father are one.
We might be tempted to find, with Luthardt, a strict syllogism in the thoughts expressed in Joh 10:29-30. Major: My Father is greater than all (Joh 10:29). Minor: I and my Father are one (Joh 10:30). Conclusion: Therefore I shall victoriously defend them against all (Joh 10:29). But, in general, the reasoning of Jesus tends rather to extend in a spiral manner than to close in upon itself like a circle. This is the case here: the sentiment rises and enlarges. Jesus begins by indicating the absolutely certain guaranty of His right of property in the sheep: God who has given them to Him is more powerful than all the forces of the universe. That any one should be able to wrest them from Him, it is necessary that He should begin by wresting them from God. Then, from this point, His thought rises still higher, even to the idea of the relation in virtue of which everything is common between the Father and the Son. We see in this gradation the filial consciousness displaying itself even till it has reached its utmost depth (Joh 10:30).
There are four principal readings in Joh 10:29 : 1. That of the T. R. and the eleven less ancient Mjj. ( etc.): and : The Father who has given them to me is greater than all. 2. That of B. It. and : That which the Father has given me is greater than all. 3. That of A and X: and : The Father who has given them to me is something greater (neuter) than all. 4. That of L, and , which has really no meaning unless we consent to give a masculine attribute () to a neuter subject (what the Father…). It is the same with the third, in which the subject is masculine and the attribute neuter. How could God be represented as a thing? Finally, one must be singularly blinded by prejudice in favor of the text of B, to prefer, as Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort do, the second reading to the first. Not only do the ordinary documents of the Alexandrian text contradict one another; but the sense which is offered by the reading of the Vatican MS. has not the least internal probability. John would say, according to that reading, that what the Father has given to Jesus is greater than all or everything. It would thus be the flock of Jesus which is here called greater, in the sense of more precious, more excellent than all. But what a strange expression! Believers are of more value than the whole universe, perchance. But the Scriptures never express themselves in this way. They glorify God, not men, even the most faithful men. Moreover, the expressions: no one shall snatch them (Joh 10:28), no one can snatch them (Joh 10:29), show that the point in hand is a comparison of power, not between the sheep and their enemies, but between God Himself and these enemies. So Luthardt, Weiss and Keil, in this case, give up the reading against which we are contending. The following is the way in which these variants may have arisen. Offense may have been taken at seeing , has given, without an object, and, through a recalling of the expression in Joh 6:37; Joh 6:39 (that which the Father gives me, has given me) and Joh 17:3 (that which thou hast given me), the copyists may have changed (who) into (that which) and made , the Father, the subject of has given. The transformation of into was the inevitable consequence of the first change. The other readings are mixtures resulting from the embarrassment in which the subsequent copyists found themselves.
The hand, when the Father is in question, represents power rather than possession. God has transmitted this to the Son; but His power remains the safeguard of the property of the Son which is common to Him with the Fathers. Can this guaranty insure believers against the consequences of their own unfaithfulness, as Hengstenbergasserts? The text says nothing like this. The question is of enemies from without, who seek to carry off the sheep, but not of unfaithfulness through which the sheep would themselves cease to be sheep.
According to Weiss, Joh 10:30 is intended to resolve the apparent contradiction between guarded by my Father and guarded by me. I do not believe in this relation between Joh 10:30 and Joh 10:29, because in what precedes the idea of guarding has been in reality attributed only to God; the end of Joh 10:28 referred, as we have seen, to the right of property, not to the guarding of the sheep. Joh 10:30 serves rather to explain why the Father inviolably guards that which belongs to the Son. It is because they have all things common, because they are one. If such is indeed the connection of ideas, Joh 10:30 cannot refer either to the unity of moral will (the Socinians), or of power (Chrysostom and many others, as Lucke, de Wette, etc.), or even solely to the community of action for the salvation of mankind (Weiss), as it has been described in Joh 10:19-20, and in the sense in which Paul says, 1Co 3:9, of himself and Apollos: He that planteth and he that watereth are one ( ), namely, as to the end which they propose to themselves in their work. Here the question is of the relation, not between two workmen, but between Christ as man and God.
And if Jesus had only meant this, why did He not determine more clearly this notion of co-working, as Paul does in the following words (Joh 10:10), when he comes to speak of his relation to God: We are God’s fellow-workers? Why above all give needlessly, and as it were wantonly, an offense to the Jews by employing an expression which appeared to say more than what He in reality meant to say? No, Jesus neither meant: We desireone and the same thing, nor We have the same power, nor, We labor in the same work. In saying We are one, He has affirmed a more profound unity, that which is the inner and hidden basis of all the preceding statements and which Jesus here allows to break forth, as in Joh 8:58 He had suffered the deepest foundation of His personal existence to show itself. Reuss, being altogether indifferent to the question, since he ascribes the discourses of John to the evangelist, recognizes without hesitation the true meaning of this verse: The filial relation here, as throughout the whole book, is not only that of love or of the community of will and of action (the ethical relation), but also that of a community of nature and essence (the metaphysical relation). The term one expresses the consciousness of union, not only moral but essential, with God Himself; the expression we are establishes the difference of persons. As to we, it would be in itself alone a blasphemy in the mouth of a creature; God and I, we(comp. Joh 14:23)! It has been objected that the expression: to be one, is elsewhere applied to the relation between Jesus and believers, which would prove that it has a purely moral sense. But the union of Jesus and believers is not a mere agreement of will; it is a consubstantial union. The incarnation has established between Jesus and ourselves a relation of nature, and this relation embraces henceforth our entire personality, physical and moral.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Jesus heightened this promise of security. He reminded His hearers that because what He did was simply execute the Father’s will it was the Father as well as Himself that would keep His sheep secure (cf. Joh 17:12). No one can steal from God. No one has superior strength or wisdom to overpower or outwit Him (cf. Col 3:3). No one will snatch them from God (Joh 10:28), and no one can do so either.