John

10:22-42

The Ministry of the Messiah, 2:1-12:50

6. Jesus the light of life, 8:12-10:42

iii] Who is Jesus?

Synopsis

Jesus is in Jerusalem teaching in the temple during the feast of Dedication. It is winter and Jesus is in Solomon's Cloister. The religious authorities demand that Jesus plainly outline his messianic claims, but Jesus replies "my deeds done in my Father's name are my credentials." To this Jesus goes on to explain how his signs either promote unbelief, or belief. It is only those who believe who gain eternal life and "no one will snatch them from my care."

 
Teaching

Jesus is one, along with the Father, who gathers, protects and eternally blesses those who respond to him in faith.

 
Issues

i] Context: See 9:1-41

 

ii] Background: The feast of Dedication celebrates the rededication of the temple by Judas the Maccabee; it celebrated the victory of true religion over the corruption of Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus had suppressed the worship of Jehovah and replaced it with the worship of Zeus. The victory of Judas Maccabaeus in 164BC, restored the worship of the true God in a cleansed and refurbished temple. Although the festival was celebrated in the Temple, it could also be celebrated in private homes with the lighting of festive candles. It was held at the point of the winter equinox, (mid December, in competition to the pagan rite of Saturnalia). Presumably Jesus had stayed in the vicinity of Jerusalem, since the festival was some two months after the feast of Tabernacles.

 

iii] Structure: This forensic discourse, Who is Jesus?, presents as follows:

Jesus and the Father, v22-42:

The relation of Jesus to the Father, 22-30;

Setting, v22-23;

Question by the authorities, v24:

"if you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Jesus' response, v25-30:

"the works I do in my Father's name testify about me."

"you do not believe because you are not my sheep."

"my sheep listen (believe) ...

"I give them eternal life."

"no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand."

to this the Father and I act in one accord.

The charge of blasphemy, v31-39;

Jesus heads across the Jordan, v40-42.

 

iv] Interpretation:

In this, their last debate with Jesus, the authorities demand that Jesus declare plainly whether his is the messiah. It's not possible for Jesus to simply answer yes because they are looking for a political messiah to overthrow Roman rule. So, Jesus directs them to his messianic signs. The authorities are unconvinced. Jesus points out that "if you follow me not, it is not because I am not a shepherd (of Israel / messiah), but because you are not my sheep", Chrysostom. Christ's sheep hear and follow and find divine security. To this end "the Father and I are one", ie., "the Son thinks the Father's thoughts and wills the Father's purpose and acts in the Father's power", T.W. Manson. The authorities react in rage at Jesus' words, but Jesus asks them to tell him which of his "good works" (messianic signs) are they going to stone him for. Jesus then exposes the foolishness of their claim that he is guilty of blasphemy and calls on them to accept the evidence of his deeds, deeds which reveal that he speaks with the authority of God the Father

 

"You do not believe because you are not my sheep", v26. Does this verse minimize human responsibility in salvation? In the wider context, v37-38 work against any doctrinal position that fails to recognize that God's call to faith is genuinely made to all and that all are accountable for their response to this call. Jesus' words here reflect both the healing of the blind man and the parable of the sheep. Those who belong to the shepherd hear his voice, follow him and are eternally secure with him. The question of how they actually get to belong to the shepherd is not the issue here. The point being made here is that those who belong, will follow, listen and eternally receive. Jesus' antagonists do not belong to him, therefore do not rely on his words nor his signs.

How then does the shepherd gather his flock? As a sovereign act of God's grace, the shepherd chooses to gather his flock through the instrument of faith. He does this by the free offer of eternal forgiveness in the death and resurrection of Christ, which gift is appropriated by seeking out God's mercy in Christ and asking for it, ie., by faith. Such does not deny the sovereign will of God. The flock is created through the sovereign grace of God and in his power is eternally secure. Such is God's predetermined will, and no enemy can undo the flock he has created.

 

"I and the Father are one", v30. When it comes to the protection of the flock, both the Father and Son guarantee its safety - they are in agreement as to the action of saving those who believe and securing them to eternal life; "the Son thinks the Father's thoughts and wills the Father's purpose and acts in the Father's power", Manson. Yet, is that the end of it? Is a metaphysical unity also implied here? Carson thinks so, as does Morris, but the context is against them. This verse was central to the great trinitarian debate and was interpreted differently by all contenders. For those who argued that God is one, such that the individual persons of the trinity are but manifestations of His oneness, "one" was their big line. The Arians went to the other extreme and argued that the text reveals a moral unity between the Father and the Son, but nothing more.

 

v] Exposition: A simple exposition of this passage may be found in the linked pew-level Sermon Notes.

 
Text - 10:22

The Jewish religious authorities dismiss Jesus' messianic signs and accuse him of blasphemy, v22-42. i] The relation of Jesus to the Father, v22-30: a) Setting, v22-23. The feast of Dedication was in full swing, yet as Jesus walked in the temple courts, the chilling wind that whistled around him well illustrated the cold hearts of faithless Israel.

tote adv. "then [came]" - then [there was]. This temporal adverb is transitional, indicating a step in the narrative. Although a variant, it is usually read to indicate a "close connection with the preceding passage", Wright. "At that time [the festival of dedication] took place", NRSV. The NEB reworks this rather awkward sentence with "it was winter and the festival of dedication was being held."

ta egkainia "the feast of dedication" - the festival of the dedication. This festival celebrated the Maccabean victory over the Syrians in 164BC and the rededication of the Temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes.

en + dat. "-" - in [the ones]. Local, expressing space, here with the sense "among those in Jerusalem."

toiV IerosolumoiV (a) "[at] Jerusalem" - [in] the jerusalem. The article particularizes, but is unnecessary. It is likely that the Feast of Dedication could be held in regional centers as well as in Jerusalem and so necessitating the mention of Jerusalem here.

ceimwn hJn "it was winter" - winter it was. Or possibly "wintery weather". John is quite possibly imaging the cold hearts of the people of Israel now confronting Jesus. Note that the imperfect tense of the verb to-be is probably being used here to indicate the provision of background information.

 
v23

periepatei (peripatew) imperf. "walking" - [and jesus] was walking around. The imperfect is durative expressing ongoing action, rather than expressing customary actions, "used to walk", Moffatt. "Jesus was in the temple walking up and down", NJB.

en + dat. "in" - Local, expressing space; "in".

tou SolomwnoV "Solomon's [Colonnade]" - [the porch] of solomon. The genitive is adjectival, limiting "porch", possibly possessive, as NIV, or idiomatic / identification, "the porch / colonnade which is ascribed to / dedicated to Solomon." According to Josephus, a covered colonnade surrounded the temple proper with the eastern one dedicated to Solomon.

 
v24

b) The authorities question Jesus, v24. The question asked by the religious authorities concerns what they see as a tease. Jesus has never openly said that he is the messiah. He is a light to the world and a shepherd of the sheep, but is he the messiah? They want a clear answer from Jesus; for some an answer that can be used in evidence against him.

oun "-" - therefore. Transitional, "then", or inferential, establishing a logical connection, "so, consequently, subsequently"; given the opportunity, namely, Jesus' presence in the temple precinct, the "Jews" (unbelieving Israel, specifically the Jewish religious authorities) corner Jesus. "So the Jews gathered around him", ESV.

ekuklwsan (kuklow) aor. "[The Jews] gathered around" - [the jews] encircled, surrounded [him]. The word may imply a threatening press. "The Jews closed in on him", Phillips.

elegon (legw) imperf. "saying" - [and] were saying. The use of a durative imperfect may imply ongoing questioning, although the imperfect is often used of speech as a matter of course.

autw/ dat. pro. "-" - to him. Dative of indirect object.

e{wV pote "how long" - until when. A temporal construction, "how long."

aireiV (airw) pres. "will you keep [us in suspense?]" - are you taking up, lifting [the soul of us]. "Take away", keep from us "the breath" of us, ie. our life. The sentence is usually translated in line with the NIV, "keep us in suspense", but some commentators note that in modern Greek the sense is "provoke, trouble, annoy, vex, pester." This interpretation fits the situation well, given that the Jews are unlikely to be asking for a clear declaration of who he is so that they can believe on him. Jesus has already made numerous messianic-like claims, eg. light of the world, but they have not believed. It is likely that the authorities just want something tangible to use against Jesus.

ei + ind. "if [you are the Christ]" - if. Introducing a conditional clause 1st. class / real, where the proposed condition is assumed to be true for argument sake; "if, as is the case for argument sake, ...... then ......"

oJ cristoV "the Christ" - [you are] the christ. Predicate nominative. The Jewish messiah.

parrhsia/ (a) dat. "[tell us] plainly" - [speak to us] in open / in boldness. The dative is probably adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of the speaking; "with plain words = plainly" / "with boldness = boldly." The motive of the request/command is unclear. The Jews may just be frustrated that Jesus has not clearly stated who he is. On the other hand, they may have already decided that Jesus is not the Christ and want to get some evidence to use against him.

 
v25

c) Jesus' response, v25-30. The question put to Jesus is straight forward - "if you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." The question is probably hostile, but even if it isn't, the authorities view of the coming messiah does not align with the person who now stands before them. Words make no impact upon them, and so Jesus can only point to his actions - "the works that I do in my Father's name bear witness to me." Yet, no matter how clear the evidence "the Jews" cannot accept Jesus' messianic testimony because they are not his sheep. For those who have eyes to see, those who are seekers / believers, both Jesus' teachings and his works clearly declare who he is. As for Jesus' opponents who both hear and see, they have long decided not to believe and so cannot hear and cannot see. They do not listen, understand, believe and follow, because they are not members of Jesus' flock. Those who are his sheep hear his voice and follow him. Summarizing his teaching on the shepherd and the sheep in v28-29, Jesus again makes the point that those who are his sheep are eternally blessed with the gift of eternal life, a spiritual life that is full, abundant and everlasting. Christ's sheep possess the gift of eternal security; no enemy will ever overpower Jesus' flock. The flock cannot be overpowered because God the Father is far greater than any enemy. In Christ we are secure. In a rather succinct statement in v30 Jesus makes the point that this security is guaranteed because both the Father and the Son are at one when it comes to the gathering, protecting and blessing of the flock.

autoiV dat. "-" - [jesus replied] to them. Dative of indirect object, "Jesus spoke to them" = "Jesus answered them".

eipon aor. "I did tell [you]" - i said [to you]. Jesus was certainly open with the Samaritan woman, but there is little evidence of him speaking plainly to the crowds. None-the-less, Westcott takes the view that Jesus' teachings have made clear who he is, but only to those who want to see. "I have already told you."

kai "but [you do not believe]" - and [you do not believe]. Slightly adversative, as NIV.

ta erga (on) "the miracles / the works" - the works [which i do]. Nominative subject of the verb "to bear witness." The "signs" that signify who Jesus is, ie., "If I by the finger of God cast out demons then you know that the kingdom has come upon you."

en "in [my Father's name]" - in [the name of the father of me]. Instrumental, expressing means. "In the name of" often with the sense "in the person of" extending to "by / with / under the authority of", so "by my Father's authority" = "as the representative of my Father."

marturei (marturew) pres. sing. "speak / testify" - [these] bear witness. Note the practice of forming the verb in the singular when its subject is a plural neuter noun. A plural neuter noun is often treated as if it is collective.

peri + gen. "of me / about me" - about me. Expressing reference / respect; "about / concerning me."

 
v26

alla "but" - but. Here adversative, as NIV.

ou pisteuete (pisteuw) pres. "you do not believe" - Perception is dependent on belief.

oJti "because" - because. Here causal, as NIV.

ek + gen. "[you are not]" - [you are not] from. The preposition here may express origin / source, but more likely it serves in the place of a partitive genitive; "you are not of my sheep."

twn emwn "my [sheep]" - the sheep [of me]. The article may imply "the flock of me", "you are not of the sheep of my flock", but note the same construction in v27,ta ema, "those / the ones who are the sheep of mine

 
v27

thV fwnhV (h) gen. "[listen to my] voice" - [the sheep the mine = my sheep hear, obey] the voice [of me]. Genitive of direct object after the verb "to hear, obey." Note that the verb "to hear" is emphatic by position. The point may be that Christ's predetermined children hear the gospel and respond in faith (known by Christ they follow Christ), but it is more likely that the children of faith give heed to Christ's words, are known by Christ in the power of his indwelling Spirit, and consequently follow Christ. Thus, perseverance / the eternal safety of the sheep is guaranteed, cf. v28.

moi dat. pro. "[they follow] me" - [and i know them and they follow] me. Dative of direct object after the verb "to follow after."

 
v28

kagw "I" - and i. This crasis, kai + egw, is often used as a connective in a narrative in the 1st. person.

autoiV dat. pro. "[give] them" - [give] to them [eternal life]. Dative of indirect object.

ou mh + subj. "never [perish]" - [and they will] not not [perish]. This construction forms a subjunctive of emphatic negation, "never". "It is everlasting life that I bestow upon them. To all eternity they shall not perish", Cassirer.

eiV ton aiwna "-" - into the age. This temporal idiomatic phrase meaning "forever" is used to further strengthen the subjunctive of emphatic negation; "they will never ever perish."

ek + gen. "out of" - [and anyone will not snatch them] from, out of [the hand of me]. Expressing expressing separation, "away from", or source / origin, "no one will ever snatch them out of my keeping", Barclay.

 
v29

o} pro. "who [has given them]" - that which [the father of me has given]. The better textual support is for the neuter pronoun o}, "what", but a masculine variant o}V, "who", does exist. The clause "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all", has suffered textual disturbance. See Barrett for a run down on the many variant texts, along with their possible meanings, p.317 - . The NIV takes the simplest reading, ie., because of the Father's greatness, no one can snatch believers (those who have been given to Jesus) from his hand. C.H. Dodd argues that this, the simplest reading, is the correct one. The other two favored possibilities are: i] "My Father, as to what he has given me, is greater than all"; "my Father, in regard to what he has given me is greater than all", J.N. Birdsall, ie., because of the divine support given to believers, the flock can stand secure. ii] "As for my Father, what he has given to me is greater than all"; "what my Father has given me is greater than all else" NRSV. This possibility is favored by the USB committee. Yet, what has He given, is it believers? How are they greater than all? Possibly the gift is eternal life, so Augustine. We are best to follow the NIV, NEB etc.

moi dat. pro. "to me" - to me. Dative of indirect object.

pantwn gen. adj. "[is greater] than all. [is greater] of all. The genitive is ablative, of comparison, as NIV.

aJrpazein (aJrpazw) pres. inf. "[can] snatch" - [and no one is able] to snatch away. The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the verb "is able."

ek + gen. "out of [my Father's hand]" - out of [the hand of the father]. Expressing source/origin. Reinforcing the status of a believer's assurance. The Father preserves a believer's standing, as does the Son.

 
v30

"This verse is Jesus' answer to the Jewish demand, "Tell us plainly" (v24) and expresses a functional oneness between Jesus and God (the Father) and implies their ontological identity", Harris. The implication of "ontological identity" is a valid one, and true, but may not be intended by the adjective e{n.

e{n neut. adj. "one" - [i and the father are] one. That "one" is neuter rather than masculine, clues us to the fact that, within the context, Jesus is talking about the Father and the Son's unity of action; "Both the Father and I act in concord."

 
v31

ii] The charge of blasphemy, v31-39. The claim by Jesus that he and the Father act in one accord is viewed as blasphemous by "the Jews" and so they take up stones to stone him. In response, Jesus presents them with a curly argument. He quotes Psalm 82:6 and makes the point that if scripture states that those who act as God's ambassadors are "gods" then what is wrong with Jesus calling himself "God's son." If a servant of God can be called a god, what is blasphemous about Jesus making a lesser claim? Of course, this is just a play on words, so in v37-38 Jesus goes on to again point his protagonists to his deeds. The signs performed by Jesus themselves proclaim that the Father is en, "in", Jesus, and that Jesus is en the Father, ie., the concord of action between the Father and Son is enabled by the intimacy of their relationship - en, "in" = incorporative union, but see v38. This proclamation by Jesus prompts an aggressive reaction, and so Jesus leaves them in their fury, v39.

palin "again" - [the jews] again [took up stones]. Sequential adverb, here expressing a repetition of action, "one again."

iJna + subj. "to [stone him]" - that [they might stone him]. Here introducing a final clause expressing purpose, "in order to stone him."

 
v32

Jesus' erga kala, "good works", bear witness to his messianic mission, and the divine authority by which he does the works.

autoiV dat. pro. "to them" - [jesus replied] to them. Dative of indirect object.

ek + gen. "from [the Father]" - [many good works i showed to you] from [the father]. Expressing source / origin; "originating from the Father", Novakovic, "in the Father", Harris, but possibly agency "given me by my Father", Zerwick.

dia poion "for which" - because of which [work of them]. An interrogative causal construction; dia, causal preposition, + poion, interrogative pronoun, "what?"

liqazete (liqazw) pres. "do you stone" - do you stone [me]. The present tense is best taken here as tendential / conative, ie., attempted action, "Which of these works are you trying to stone me for?" cf., Fanning Gk. 220, but possibly a futuristic present, "for which of them are you going to stone me?" Beasley-Murray.

 
v33

Given that both Jesus' works / signs and words are in perfect harmony, it is illogical to affirm the signs, but take offense at the words (a rather modern issue!!!).

autw/ dat. pro. "-" - [the jews replied] to him. Dative of indirect object.

ou liqazomen (liqazw) pres. "we are not stoning [you]" - we do not stone [you]. The present tense may be again tendential / conative, expressing contemplated action; "we do not want to stone you", TEV, or future, "we are not going to stone you."

peri + gen. "for" - about [a good work]. Expressing reference / respect, "with respect to a good work" = "for a good work / deeds." CEV opts for a more natural causal sense, "because of any good thing you did."

alla "but" - but [about, concerning blasphemy]. Strong adversative standing in a counterpoint construction; "not ..... but ....." "Blasphemy" for a Jew primarily concerns insulting God. Jesus insults God by aligning himself with God by stating that he and God the Father act in concord with each other. The TEV again opts for "because of your blasphemy", rather than "for blasphemy", ESV, etc.; "because of the way you insult God", TH.

kai "-" - and. Probably here epexegetic; "namely / that is, because you, being a mere man, make yourself out to be God."

oJti "because" - because. Introducing a causal clause explaining why Jesus is being charged with blasphemy.

su "you" - you. Emphaptic by position and use.

w]n (eimi) [a] mere [man]" - being [a man]. The participle is adverbial, best treated as concessive, "because you, although just a man."

qeon (oV) "[claim to be] God" - [make yourself] god. Accusative complement of the direct object "yourself" standing in a double accusative construction. The verb "you do" = "you make", may take the sense "you claim", NEB; "you .... are claiming to be God." Is this statement a shorthand version of ison eJauton poiwn tw/ qew/, "making himself equal with God", 5:18? In the passage before us "God" is anarthrous (without an article) and so can be viewed as adjectival in function, "making yourself God-like", ie., "equal with God." Of course, Jesus does not claim to be God, nor does he claim to be equal with God. Jesus claims to be God's I AM, his word / revelation to mankind, "the Son sent by the Father to bring light and life to mankind", Bruce. "For the reader the irony is palpable. Jesus has not 'made himself' God. He is himself the eternal Word, the Word that was with God and was God. He is the unique Son, utterly obedient to his Father and doing everything the Father does", Carson.

 
v34

Jesus now quotes Psalm 82:6 where rulers of Israel are referred to as gods.

autoiV dat. pro. "them" - [jesus replied] to them. Dative of indirect object.

ouk "[is it] not" - [is] not. This negation is used in a question expecting an affirmative answer.

gegrammenon (grafw) perf. mid./pas. part. "written" - having been written. The participle with the verb to-be estin forms a periphrastic perfect construction.

en + dat. "in" - in. Local, expressing space; "found written in the Law."

uJmwn gen. pro. "your [Law]" - [the law] of you. The genitive is adjectival, possessive, although its function is more attributive / idiomatic, limiting "Law" - "your" is used to emphasize that this is the Law that "the Jews" affirm and hold to be true; "the Law which you submit to." Jesus is not implying that it is not his Law. The Law usually refers to the first five books of Moses, the Pentateuch, but here obviously used of the scriptures as a whole.

oJti "-" - that [i said you are gods]. Introducing a dependent statement of direct speech / quote. Jesus only uses the quote to play with his opponents and so expose their flawed approach to scripture. The use of an improper methadology (in their case literalism shaped by tradition) for the interpretation of scripture is just as much a problem today as it was then. The quote itself refers to those leaders of Israel who flouted God's revelation and unjustly ruled the people and who were consequently judged for their actions. Possibly referring to leaders during the period of the Judges, or even those who revolted against Moses. Most likely referring to human leaders, although some propose angelic heavenly leaders (so J.A. Emerton).

 
v35

Jesus' argument coving v35-36 is a rabbinic a fortiori argument (lesser to greater), although in substance it is ad homines (fallacious - argumentative rather than substantial). If Israel's leaders in the past, those who had received God's Word (and flouted it), were given the title "gods", then how much more appropriate is it for Jesus, a unique agent of God's Word (given his good works, signs), to be addressed as the Son of God.

ei "if" - if. Introducing a 1st. class / real conditional clause where the proposed condition is assumed to be true (in this case for argument sake). The clause covers v35-36; "if, as is the case for argument sake, the writer gave the name 'gods' to people inspired by God ............, then why are you accusing me ......... of blasphemy because I said I'm the Son of God?"

qeouV (oV) "gods" - [he called those ones] gods. Accusative complement of the direct object "those ones" standing in a double accusative construction.

proV + acc. "to [whom]" - toward [whom]. Spacial, expressing movement toward.

tou qeou (oV) gen. "[the word] of God" - [the word] of god [came]. The genitive may be treated as ablative, "word from God", or adjectival, idiomatic, limiting "word", "the word that God spoke", Harris; "If those to whom God addressed these words are referred to as gods", Cassirer.

kai "and" - and. Here introducing a parenthetical comments; "and as we well know scripture cannot be broken / annulled." Put positively, "scripture is always true", "scripture always remains valid."

luqhnai (luw) aor. pas. inf. "[cannot] be set aside" - [the scripture is not able] to be loosed = annulled. The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the negated verb "to be able." Note how "scripture" is used with the same sense as "Law".

 
v36

In this verse we pick up on the apodosis (the then clause) of the conditional clause commenced in v35. It presents in the form of a question and has prompted numerous translations, lit.: "if as is the case for argument sake he called those ones gods, ............ (v36) then do you say that he blasphemes, with reference to the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, because I said I am Son of God?"

o}n pro. "What about the one whom" - the one whom. Relative pronoun, emphatic by position, serving as an accusative of reference / respect, "concerning, about whom ..", as above, so Barrett, Kostenberger, Harris, ... and most translations"; "Do you say of him whom ....", ESV. It introduces a clause which is epexegetic in function, specifying the agent of the blasphemes", "namely / that is, him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world." Contra Novakovic who argues that it simply functions as the accusative indirect object of the verb "to say."

hJgiasen (aJgiazw) aor. "[the Father] set apart" - sanctified. The prime sense is "to make holy", but it is particularly used with the sense "to set apart for a divine purpose", ie., to consecrate. This is obviously the sense here, given that Jesus doesn't need to be sanctified.

oJti "because [I said]" - that [he blasphemes] that = because [i said i am son of god]. The first use of this conjunction introduces a dependent statement of indirect speech expressing what "you say", while the second use is causal, "because I said."

uiJoV tou qeou "God's Son" - son of god. See 5:24.

 
v37

The "if" of the conditional clause and the negations make for a confusing sentence, particularly when separated from v38. The use of de to introduce v38 rather than alla hides what is virtually a counterpoint construction, "not that (v37), but this (v38)"; "if I fail to do my Father's work do not believe in me, but if I do it, even though you do not believe in me, believe in the work, so that you may see and comprehend that the Father is in me and I in the Father", Rieu. Jesus' signs show that he is God the Father's man in this world, and they can help lead a person to faith.

ei + ind. "-" - if. Introducing a conditional clause 1st. class / real, where the proposed condition is assumed to be true; "if, as is the case, ...... then [don't believe in me]"

tou patroV (hr roV) gen. "[the works] of [my] father" - [i do not do the works] of the father [of me]. The genitive is adjectival, attributive, idiomatic / verbal, subjective, limiting "works", "the works which the Father requires me to do."

 
v38

de "but" - Transitional, introducing a counterpoint.

ei + ind. "if [I do them]" - if [i do the works]. Introducing a conditional clause 1st. class / real, where the proposed condition is assumed to be true; "if, as is the case, ......, then [at least believe the works]."

kan adv. "even though" - and if [you do not believe]. This crasis, kai + an + subj., introduces a 3rd class conditional clause where the proposed condition has the possibility of coming true. It stands in conjunction with the protasis (if clause) of 1st. class conditional clause, with both having the same apodosis (then clause). The kai is ascensive, so "even if"; "even if you don't have faith in me", CEV. Often translated as a concessive clause, "even though", as NIV.

emoi dat. pro. "me" - me. Dative of direct object after the verb "to believe."

toiV ergoiV (ergon) dat. "[believe] the works" - [believe] the works. Dative of direct object after the verb "to believe."

iJna + subj. "that" - that [you may know and may know]. Introducing a final clause expressing purpose, "in order that." The second verb "to know" is a durative present tense, so "continue to know" = "understand".

oJti "that" - that [the father is in me]. Introducing an object clause / dependent statement of perception expressing what they should know.

kagw "and I" - Crasis, kai + egw, "and I."

en + "in [the Father]" - Here local, expressing space / metaphorical - incorporative union = "in relationship with."

 
v39

The religious authorities again try to silence Jesus, but he alludes them, cf., 7:30, 8:20, 59, 10:31.

oun "-" - therefore. Variant reading. Transitional.

piasai (piazw) aor. inf. "[they tried] to size" - [again they were seeking] to seize [him]. The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the verb "to seek"; "At that the desire once again arose in them to seize him by force, but he escaped their hands", Cassirer.

kai "but" - and. Here with an adversative edge, as NIV.

ek + gen. "he escaped" - [he went out from] from [the hand of them]. Expressing separation, "away from." Usual repetition of a verbal prefix, here for the verb "to go out from"

 
v40

iii] Jesus heads across the Jordan, v40-42. The cycle, From Jerusalem to Jerusalem, which began with the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, chapter 5, now comes to an end as Jesus leaves Jerusalem for Transjordan. The final cycle, Jesus returns to Jerusalem, will soon follow as he faces the day of his glorification. Our author tells us that Jesus has fulfilled the mission of John the Baptist. The Baptist's task was to reveal the coming messiah to Israel, to prepare his way. Jesus has realized the Baptist's mission, but at the center of Israel's religious life, Jerusalem, all Jesus found was unbelief. Yet, at the fringe, in the very place where the Baptist often ministered, there is belief; "Everything John said about this man was true."

baptizwn (baptizw) pres. part. "[where John had been] baptizing" - [and he went away again across the jordan to the place where john was] baptizing. The participle with the imperfect verb to-be h\n forms a periphrastic imperfect construction, which may serve to emphasize durative aspect, "where John often baptized / immersed people."

to prwton adj. "in the early days" - the first [and he remained there]. The accusative article to with adjective "first" forms a temporal adverb modifying the participle "baptizing"; "where John had baptized at first", Moffatt.

 
v41

oJti "-" - [and many were coming toward him and were saying] that. Introducing a dependent statement of direct speech expressing what they were saying.

men ... de .. "-" - on the one hand [john did no sign] but on the other hand [all things john said, as much as concerning this one, was true]. An adversative comparative construction.

oJsa pro. "[all] that [John said]" - [all things john said], as much as. Here the correlative pronoun refers back to panta, "all" = "everything." So, "everything John said, everything as much as concerning this one" = "everything John said, everything that concerns this one / Jesus" = "everything that John said about this man", ESV.

peri + gen. "about [this man]" - concerning [this one, was true]. Expressing reference / respect; "about, concerning." "Everything he said about Jesus was true", CEV.

 
v42

eiV + acc. "[many believed] in [Jesus]" - [and many believed] into [him there]. This preposition indicates the direction of the action and arrival at. When used of "belief", it is interchangeable with en, "in, on", so expressing goal and dependence on.

 

John Introduction

Exposition

 

[Pumpkin Cottage]
lectionarystudies.com