Now the feast of the dedication was celebrating at Jerusalem, and it was winter.
John gives both a date and a season: the Lord is in Jerusalem for a festival the law of Moses never commanded, and the weather is cold. Why record a man-made feast at all, and why mention the winter?
This festival was not one of the feasts God appointed in the law. It remembered the day the temple was cleansed after a foreign king had defiled it.
A yearly feast celebrating the dedication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus after Antiochus Epiphanes polluted it, 165 B.C. It began on the 25th of the month Chisleu and lasted eight days. The dedication of the temple under Ezra was on the 3rd of Adar, Ezra 6:15-16; but that was not made a yearly feast. The dedication of the temple under Solomon was at the Feast of Tabernacles. 1 Kings 8:2; 2 Chronicles 5:3.
The wording John chooses is worth noticing, and so is the timing of the month.
The Maccabean Jews set up the "Feast of Dedication," also called the "Feast of Lights." It remembered the re-dedication of the temple after the victories of Judas over Antiochus Epiphanes, who had desecrated it. The Chanuka generally falls in the month of Chisleu, or December, and so the mention of "winter." Notice that the Evangelist does not speak of it as a "feast" — that is, as if it had divine sanction.
Kelly is reading the original wording, which names the dedication without calling it a feast. English versions such as the ESV supply the word.
People have used this verse to argue that Jesus endorsed observances added by men. One writer answers that the text says only where He was, not what He joined in.
Many of us know the attempt to use the opening of verse 22 to support tradition and human authority in divine things. But it is useless. Here we learn nothing about our Lord taking part in any observances of men, whatever they may have been. We learn only that He was then in Jerusalem, winter as it was, and walking in Solomon's porch.
The porch still carried Solomon's name. But the temple the Lord walked in was not Solomon's temple.
The feast of the dedication of the temple came two months after the events just told, yet the connection with them is clear. The dedication being remembered was not Solomon's. It was the re-dedication by Judas Maccabaeus, after Antiochus had profaned the temple. Yet the Lord walking in Solomon's porch (or colonnade) is surely meaningful: it carries us back to that first dedication, if only by contrast. The massive foundations of Solomon's structure remained, but only in ruin... The glory was gone, the Living Voice that had once spoken to them was silent now. The ark and mercy seat were gone — the throne of the divine Inhabitant, where the covering blood should have been sprinkled.
Consider who was walking in that temple, and how the priests treated Him.
And now we have the surpassingly wonderful PERSON walking there. Shall we see the priests paying homage to the One greater than the temple, greater than the sacrifices, greater than the types and shadows?... And yet He was unknown. He was insulted, called a Samaritan, an outcast, charged with being demon-possessed, and no priest did Him homage. No wonder we have the sentence, "It was winter." Truly it was spiritual winter. Not a leaf on the dead tree of ritualism; the shell had no kernel, the profession had no reality, ordinances gave no satisfaction.
Commentators read the season as a picture of the nation's state.
"It was winter." Yes, "winter!" All was now over with Israel. They had ignored their springtime of mercy and refused the light of their summer. They closed their eyes to the long lingering shadows of their autumn, and now their "winter" had come. Their harvest was past and their summer ended.
Yet another writer points the same picture forward, because seasons change.
In Solomon's porch walked One whose glory far surpassed that of the famous king. Yet He was unwanted and unacknowledged... The Holy Spirit notes, "It was winter." This describes the condition spiritually as well as physically. When Israel is in a better frame of mind, summer will come, for themselves and for all nations.
Earlier in the chapter the Shepherd gathers His sheep. What is winter to them?
It may be "winter" outside (v. 22), but not for those within who are resting on Jesus' breast. No chilling blasts are felt inside the circle of the Father's love.
- Feast — A December festival remembering the cleansing of the temple under Judas Maccabeus. The law never commanded it, and John does not treat it as having divine sanction.
- Porch — Solomon's name still stood over the building. But the glory, the ark and the mercy seat were gone.
- Winter — The word fits the month and the nation. Their religion kept its anniversaries, but the tree was bare and the shell had no kernel.
- Person — On the temple's greatest day, the One greater than the temple walked there unknown, and no priest honoured Him.
- Warmth — One writer looks on to a summer for Israel. Meanwhile no cold reaches those inside the Father's love.
And Jesus walked in the temple in the porch of Solomon.
A colonnade is a covered walkway; this one stood on the temple grounds and carried the name of Solomon, Israel's greatest king. Commentators read that name — and the winter John notes — as a picture of the nation's state, and of the One walking among them unrecognised.
The mention of winter carries two meanings. It also sets the Lord's own walk against the deadness around Him.
In John 10:22-23 our blessed Lord was in the temple in Solomon's porch. The temple was a magnificent structure, with all its show of religious service, and the feast of dedication was in progress. Yet "it was winter." That was true of the season of the year. It was also a perfect description of the nation's condition. Where there was no life spiritually there was no movement toward God, for all its fair show. But there is something else to notice: "Jesus walked." What a delight for the Father to look down on His beloved Son in that winter scene! In Him alone He found something for Himself. There was One who walked for His glory, where every step gave off a sweet fragrance in contrast to the corruption.
The occasion was not one of the appointed feasts of Israel, and its date explains the mention of winter.
The Maccabean Jews set up the "Feast of Dedication," also called the "Feast of Lights." It marked the rededication of the Temple after the victories of Judas over Antiochus Epiphanes, who had desecrated it... It generally falls in the month of Chisleu, or December, and so the mention of "winter." Notice that John does not speak of it as a "feast." He does not treat it as if it had Divine sanction.
The feast marked a later dedication, not Solomon's own. The name on the porch sets the two eras side by side.
Yet the Lord walking in Solomon's porch, or colonnade, is significant. It carries us back to that first dedication, if only by way of contrast. The massive foundations of Solomon's building remained, but only in ruin. However much people tried to repair it, it testified to the failure and ruin that had come in... As it stood, it was the very witness of their showy rule-keeping, which covered up the decay and desolation underneath. The Glory had departed. The Living Voice that once spoke to them was silent now. The Ark and Mercy-seat were gone — the place for the sprinkling of the covering blood, the Throne of God who dwelt there.
There are plain reasons for the shelter, and for the crowd that gathered round Him.
It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the Temple in Solomon's porch. The season of the year may account for that. Further, we gather from the mention of this porch in Acts 3:11 and 5:12 that it was a place where people gathered. While He was walking there the Jews came round Him. With a show of earnest desire they said to Him: "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
A question hangs over the scene. Would the priests honour the One walking among them?
And now we have the surpassingly wonderful PERSON walking there. Shall we have the priests paying homage to the One greater than the Temple, greater than the sacrifices, greater than the types and shadows? All this that lay before His eye was but the shadow. He was the SUBSTANCE. Without Him they would never have been, just as a shadow could not exist without the substance that casts it.
Much happened in that one spot before the Lord left it.
Solomon's Porch saw the remarkable blessing given to the sheep, and the definite condemnation of the unbelievers. It also heard that wonderful announcement of the Lord's oneness with the Father. And it was the place He left, to go back to where the testimony first began. It showed, in no small measure, the moral glory of His person, the stubbornness of His foes, and the end of His work among that guilty nation.
- Season — the December cold explains the covered walkway. Winter also pictures the nation: full religious show, no life.
- Setting — the feast marked a later rededication of the temple. John never calls it a feast God appointed.
- Shadow — the name "Solomon" recalled a glory now gone. No Ark, no Mercy-seat, no Voice: only massive foundations and patched ruin.
- Substance — the temple and its sacrifices were only the shadow. The One walking there cast it, and the priests gave Him no homage.
- Sheep — that same porch heard the blessing given to His sheep and His oneness with the Father. There His work among that nation closed.
The Jews therefore surrounded him, and said to him, Until when dost thou hold our soul in suspense? If thou art the Christ, say [so] to us openly.
The Jews crowd around Jesus in the temple at the Feast of Dedication and demand that He say plainly whether He is the Christ. They had already watched His signs, so two questions press: what did they mean by their "suspense," and why does His answer turn to what they are?
John records the time of year, and commentators read it as more than weather. The feast being kept was not one of the feasts given in the law of Moses.
This conversation takes place at the feast of the dedication (22-30). The law never commanded that feast. People added it to celebrate the cleansing of the temple after Antiochus Epiphanes defiled it. So it would suggest the reformation of the natural man. Note that we are told it was winter — a chilling time spiritually, for the air was full of unbelief.
The place carried its own irony. Solomon's porch recalled the temple's first glory, while the building standing there told a different story.
How much this second temple, again renewed with great magnificence by the bloody hands of the Edomite Herod, lacked of what the old possessed! As it stood, it was the very witness of their pretentious legalism, covering up the decay and desolation underneath. The Glory was departed, the Living Voice that had once spoken to them was silent now.
Their demand shows the state they were in.
The Jews had in fact rejected the Lord upon full evidence. They then, with the consciousness that they were going wrong, gather round Him, saying, How long do you distract our minds, deprive us of our ease of mind? "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly"; we wish to be set at ease about it. They felt they were astray.
Notice where they put the fault.
Men often charge God with being the cause of their unbelief. Their difficulties, they say, need clearer light than God has given. If He gave more, they would be convinced and believe. It is a worthless excuse, and it will not stand up in God's judgment. So here the Jews spoke as if they wanted full assurance that the Lord's claim to be the Messiah was valid: "How long will You keep us in suspense?" The hindrance, they said, lay with Him.
His reply is simply that He had told them. Writers point back to the long record of teaching already given in this Gospel.
Take only His words recorded in John 5, John 6, and John 8. No testimony could be plainer or richer. But testimony does not always last. God gives it freely, fully, and patiently. He may then turn it away from those who reject it, and to those who will hear.
He had also answered them in a way that did not depend on words.
They appeal to Him: "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." But what assurance would that give them? A man may say a great many fine things about himself, but on what ground is he to be believed? Had He not told them very plainly? And yet they had not believed. He had told them by the signs He had done under their eyes.
They wanted information about Him. He gave them a diagnosis of themselves.
Jesus said at once that He had told them plainly. His works, just as much as His words, had given plain witness to Him. Then He told them plainly that their unbelief had put the veil over their eyes. The evidence was there plainly enough, but they could not see it... they were not "My sheep," though sheep within the Jewish fold. They were spiritually dead, and so they did not respond. So Jesus told them plainly not only the truth about Himself but the truth about themselves.
People still make the same complaint today, and the answer still rests on the Word of God.
The Jews came to the Lord with a false suggestion. They said, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." His answer was, "I told you." He gave them His spoken word which was the Word of God... Today we have not the spoken Word of God. It stopped when the inspired apostles passed from the scene. The written Word of God remains and is the antidote to all doubts. It alone has authority.
- Winter — the season matched the scene: a feast the law never commanded, and an air thick with unbelief.
- Suspense — they said He was unsettling them. Commentators see the unease of people who knew they were going wrong.
- Excuse — they blamed God for their doubt and asked for clearer light. That plea will not stand in judgment.
- Evidence — He had already answered twice: in His words in John 5, 6 and 8, and in the signs they watched Him do.
- Diagnosis — He told them plainly, but about themselves: unbelief was the veil, and they were not His sheep. The cure for doubt is His Word, not a fresh proof.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye do not believe. The works which I do in my Father's name, these bear witness concerning me
The Jews surround Jesus in the temple and demand a plain answer: is He the Christ? He replies that He has told them already, and that His works have spoken for Him too.
The Jews blame Him for their unbelief, as though He had been unclear. One writer notes how common that excuse still is:
Men often charge God with being the cause of their unbelief. Their difficulties, they say, need clearer light than God has given. If He gave more, they would be convinced, and believe — a vain excuse, which will not stand when God judges. So here the Jews seemed to want to be fully sure that the Lord's claim to be the Messiah was valid. They spoke as follows: "How long will you keep us in suspense?" The hindrance, as they declared, lay with Him. Why not, then, speak plainly, and remove our uncertainty?
The Lord's first answer is that the telling has already happened. Commentators point to earlier chapters of this Gospel as the record. They also note that such testimony does not last for ever:
"Jesus answered, I told you, and you do not believe." Take only His words recorded in John 5, John 6, and John 8. A plainer and richer testimony could not be. But testimony does not always last. It is given freely, fully, patiently, and may then be turned aside from those who reject it to those who hear.
The second half of the verse turns from words to deeds. Notice the pronoun, and the name attached to it:
Notice the pronoun "I": "I do in my Father's name." It matters greatly here. It is characteristic of the Son, and it shows His Person. Elsewhere He says, "The Father who dwells in me does His works." But He and His Father are one. … The works were done in His Father's name, for that was His Sonship, and so they bore witness of Him. Done in His own name, they would have witnessed nothing. Done in His Father's name, they witnessed "concerning me" — this Sonship, and glory in that character.
These works showed something about the Father Himself:
They could not deny those works of mercy, grace, love and power, done by the Righteous, Just, Holy and True One. They showed the Father's Name. They made clear what the Father is to those who had eyes to see, and to our faith today; for, as we have said, He came in His Father's Name.
They asked for plain speech. They got it — though not the kind they wanted:
Their demand was, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus at once said that He had told them plainly. His works, just as much as His words, had borne plain witness to Him. Then He told them plainly that their unbelief had put the veil over their eyes. The evidence was there plainly enough, but they could not see it.
Another writer asks what more words would have been worth to such hearers. He points instead to what stands written:
Of what value to these men would His word have been? A moment later they take up stones to stone Him, because He said, "I and the Father are one." They ask Him to tell them plainly, yet refuse His word about who He is. The truth is, they did not want to hear. … This Gospel does not record many of the works of power that Jesus did. They are not called miracles but signs. They are recorded so that we should believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we might have life through His Name.
- Demand — They ask Him to end their suspense, and blame Him for it. Writers call that a vain excuse: the hindrance was in them, not in the evidence.
- Witness one: His words — "I told you" points back to John 5, 6 and 8. Such patient testimony may in time be turned from those who reject it to those who hear.
- Witness two: His works — Done in the Father's name, they testify to His Sonship. Done in His own name, writers say, they would have witnessed nothing.
- What they showed — The works were mercy, grace, love and power. They made clear what the Father is, to those with eyes to see and to faith today.
- Result — He answered plainly after all: plainly about Himself, and plainly about them. Their unbelief had veiled their eyes. The signs stand written so that readers may believe and have life.
but ye do not believe, for ye are not of my sheep, as I told you.
It is winter, and Jesus is in the temple, where a crowd demands a plain answer: is He the Christ? His reply does not blame a lack of evidence; it tells them who they are — so whose fault is their unbelief?
They asked for a plain answer. He pointed back to what He had already said and done in front of them.
In verse 24 they say to Him, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." He replied, "I told you, and you do not believe." Then He appealed to His works, done in His Father's name. They were the clearest witness to His personal glory, and evidence enough. "But," He said, "you are not among my sheep." The fault was theirs. They had zeal. They made many loud claims to know God. But unbelief had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.
Their question, asked at that moment, told its own story.
He told them who He was, but they did not believe Him. His works bore witness to the same, but they did not believe them either, because they were not of His sheep. The very fact of asking such a question at such a moment was full proof of their spiritual condition.
The words do not read as an excuse handed to the unbeliever. Their refusal is what showed where they stood, and the marks of the real sheep follow immediately.
His answer is plain: He had told them and they disbelieved. Also His works, done in His Father's name, were an unquestionable witness. If there were any doubts, this was their fault, not His. But their unbelief was evidence that they were not of His sheep. For His sheep were subject to Him: they had ears for His voice: He knew them as vitally His own: they followed Him.
Jesus speaks of "My sheep." That group is not the same as the nation.
Jesus had already told them, and they did not believe. He appeals to His works, which bore witness of Him. But they did not believe, because they were not of His sheep. It is only a question of His sheep, of those who belonged to Him, outside the outward election of the people of Israel. Here the Lord takes the occasion to bring out the blessedness of His sheep.
Another writer sets this reason beside the one Jesus gave in John 8.
If the people did not believe the testimony of His works, it was because they were not of His sheep. That was the true reason, and it put an end to all argument on the subject… In chapter 8 He had revealed the real cause of their unbelief in God's words (His own testimonies): "they were not of God." Here He declares they were not His sheep, because they did not believe His words.
These words were not aimed at people far from religion.
Religion is no guarantee that we are His. Those to whom He said, "you are not among my sheep," were prejudiced religious people, connected too with the place of the Lord's name. Jesus said this in the temple, as He walked in Solomon's porch. "It was winter" in more senses than one. They were keeping a religious feast, and they surrounded Him with questions of unbelief…
after They were strangers to the faith that works by love. At heart they were unbelievers, whatever their reasoning may have been.
They looked for signs, and signs beyond counting stood in front of them.
There were works of the same character, and the Jews were in the habit of looking for a sign. If they had looked honestly, they might have seen signs beyond counting or measure. "The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me." What could account for such hardness in any heart? "But you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." A solemn answer to a difficulty, to resistance to truth, to a rejection of Christ — as true now as ever!
The earlier chapters show how the nation reached this point.
In chapter 7 we find their definite rejection of the Lord. In chapter 8 they discredit His words, and in chapter 9 they disallow His work. Then in chapter 10 their "winter" has set in. "You are not among my sheep" was the solemn and dreadful charge pronounced against them. It was all over with the nation. Grace dealt with people one by one, but the nation had set its seal on its own condition.
If they were not His sheep, what is true of those who are?
Here a security is assured that nothing can overturn. Neither inner failure nor outer force could endanger their life. The Father and the Son maintain it, and they were not more truly one in divine nature than in loving care for the sheep.
- Evidence given — Christ had already told them, and His works bore witness. The failure was on their side, not in the proof.
- Evidence refused — their unbelief did not create their condition. It exposed it. The question itself showed where they stood.
- Sheep, not nation — belonging to Christ is personal. It stands outside the outward election of Israel as a nation.
- Religion is no guarantee — those He spoke to were keeping a feast in the temple. They were still strangers to the faith that works by love.
- Winter, or security — the nation sealed its own condition, and winter set in. For His sheep, the Father and the Son together keep their life safe.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
and I give them life eternal; and they shall never perish, and no one shall seize them out of my hand.
Jesus is speaking about His own sheep, and His death is near. Can His sheep lose what He gives? Everything turns on who gives it and whose hand holds it.
The verse opens with a gift. One writer sets that word against what sin pays instead.
Now notice the security of Christ's sheep. First, they have everlasting life. "I give them eternal life." This is His gift. It is in no way earned or deserved. No. "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Eternal life, then, comes to us as a gift. Christ does not give less. It is not life for a day or a year, but for ever — eternal life.
The word "eternal" is not only about length. It names a particular life, one already seen in the Son on earth.
He gives them eternal life, eternal security, and assures them of divine care. Already the Lord has said that He came to give life to the sheep, and to give it abundantly. Now we learn that the life He gives is "eternal life" — the life that was with the Father and shown in the Person of the Son on earth. The sheep have this life in Christ. It is to be shown in them and enjoyed now, even if they only enter into its fulness when they are with Christ in life's eternal home.
The verse says two things, not one: the life lasts, and the sheep last. One writer explains why that is not mere repetition.
First of all, the life is everlasting. But then it is not merely that the thing itself is eternal — they shall never perish. For it might be claimed that although the life lasts for ever, this depends on something in those who receive it. No: "they will never perish" — the sheep themselves. So not only the life, but those who have it by grace in Christ, shall never perish. Last of all, and crowning everything, their security answers the question of any hostile power… There was no inward source of weakness that could endanger the life, and so there should be no outward power to cause anxiety.
Some agree that no enemy can take a believer away, but say the believer can ruin himself. One writer answers from the exact wording.
Some say that He said "no one can snatch them out of His hand", but we can do it ourselves by living in sin, and so on. The correct rendering of His words answers this fully: "they will never perish." It means literally, "they shall in no way ever perish." This is absolute; it covers everything.
Why can the life not fail? Because of whose life it is.
"I give them eternal life." It is a life that is eternal, not a life to be taken away again… Christ must give eternal life; for if one of His sheep could perish, Christ must perish. And it must be a holy life too that He gives, for the same reason. What Christ gives must be holy, for He is holy. "They will never perish." A sheep is a perishing thing; but His sheep do not perish. There are two points to this security. First, Christ is in them, as their life. Second, they are in His hand… You must find someone more powerful than God, if you can be snatched out of His hand.
The verse puts safety in a hand — His, not ours. One writer pictures the shepherd carrying the found sheep home.
As sheep, our security is the responsibility of our Shepherd. Of each saved sheep it is written, "And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing." The struggle of the sheep would not be to keep on, but to get off. We are not saved by our "holding on". Sheep have no hands to hold on by… So the eternal safety of every sheep is the blessed Lord's own personal responsibility and care.
The promise is huge, but it covers one group: the sheep. One writer warns readers not to claim that comfort too quickly.
These words of our Lord Jesus give us full assurance that His sheep cannot perish. But one must be a sheep — a true believer in Jesus Christ. Someone who claims to be a Christian but has little or no thought for God's claims on his life may not be a sheep at all… His sheep have eternal life.
- Given. The life is a gift, never earned — sin pays wages, Christ gives eternal life.
- Divine. What He gives is the life that was with the Father — ours now, and enjoyed in full at home with Christ.
- Unbreakable. The promise covers both the life and the sheep: no inward weakness ends it, no outward power seizes it.
- Absolute. "They will never perish" means they shall in no way ever perish. That answers every objection, even our own sinning.
- Carried. Sheep have no hands to hold on with. Their keeping is His own responsibility — and the promise belongs to real sheep, true believers in Jesus Christ.
My Father who has given [them] to me is greater than all, and no one can seize out of the hand of my Father.
In the temple at Solomon's porch, the Jews press Jesus to say whether He is the Christ. He answers by talking about His sheep, and this verse traces their safety past His own hand to the Father who gave them to Him.
The Jews were disputing whether this man had any right to a flock at all. His answer points away from Himself to His Father.
Nothing could answer the Jews' objection about Jesus' rights to the sheep more completely than this: the Father had given them to Him. It is this that makes us so precious to Him that He will never let us perish.
That same gift also says something about the Father's own attachment to them.
We have heard in the sixth chapter of the Father's gift to His Son. Reminded of that here, we learn how secure the sheep must be if His hand keeps them. It also shows how precious they must be to the Father. He will never drop them, or let anyone snatch even one of them out of His hand. And the Father and the Son can never differ in counsel or will about the security of the sheep, now or in the end, for He and the Father are one.
Westcott counts the things that make the sheep safe. The last one on his list is the Father Himself.
The remaining three things are these. (5) They have the assurance that they will never perish. (6) The Lord's own hand protects them. (7) Anyone trying to take them would have to reckon first with the Father, who "is greater than all," and whose hand covers them too.
The wording shifts between the two verses. In verse 28 the Lord states a fact about what will happen; in verse 29 He states something about power itself.
But there was indeed a great secret between Him and His Father, stated here. "My Father, who has given them to me" — and that means not the sheep alone, but the whole work, plan, counsel, and glory. He "is greater than all," yes, greater than all things. And "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." Before, the point He had stated was that no one will; here it is that no one is able.
Verse 28 puts the sheep in the Shepherd's hand; verse 29 puts them in the Father's. The keeping is doubled.
"No one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." We are in the hand of the Son (v. 28), and in the hand of the Father (v. 29). "Kept by the power of God." 1 Peter 1:5. Our eternal security is in other and more powerful hands than our own.
The promise assumes the danger is real. It also names whose faithfulness the sheep depend on.
What is the good of saying, "no one will snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:28)? Because we are in danger of being snatched. "Snatches" is the same word: "the wolf snatches them and scatters them." I have perfect security in the Lord's faithfulness, not in my own, and from this I get dependence on Him.
The Father's hand and the Son's hand are not two separate securities. One care stands behind both.
Here is a security that cannot be overturned. No failure inside them and no force outside them could put their life at risk. The Father and the Son keep that life, and they were no more truly one in divine nature than they were one in loving care for the sheep.
- Given — The sheep are the Father's gift to the Son. That gift answers everyone who disputed His right to them, and it is why they are precious to Him.
- Greater — The Father who gave them is greater than all, so anyone who tries to take a sheep must deal with Him first.
- Held — Verse 28 places them in the Son's hand, verse 29 in the Father's; the keeping rests in hands stronger than our own.
- Unable — The wording moves from what will not happen to what cannot. No one has the power to take them out of the Father's hand. The danger is real; the outcome is not in doubt.
- One — The security rests where the passage ends: the Father and the Son are one. One in nature, and one in their care for the sheep.
I and the Father are one.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
The Jews therefore again took stones that they might stone him.
The Lord has just told His hearers that His sheep are safe in His hand and in His Father's. He ended with the words "I and the Father are one." Their answer was not argument but stones. So what did they hear Him claim, and why could their hands not carry it out?
Stones are not an argument. Their reaction shows that His hearers understood the claim — and that the claim itself is what enraged them.
The Jews correctly take the Lord's words as a claim to His Deity. It enraged them that One who was truly and clearly a Man should claim to be God, so they "picked up stones again to stone him."
The word behind "one" settles the sense. Agreement of purpose would not be enough to explain it.
"We are one" — the word is neuter. It is not one in will or purpose only, for in the case of Jesus that could still be frustrated. Will and power come together in the person of the Speaker. In these verses the distinction of Persons and the unity of nature both come out… The Jews of His day understood the Lord's statement. Their descendants, and the "Unitarians," miss its meaning.
The word "again" points back. Stones had been raised against Him before, and this outbreak came after the Lord had given up reasoning with them.
It was hopeless to reason with stubborn unbelief, so the Lord set them aside as clearly not of His sheep… But when He said "I and the Father are one," the Jews took up stones to stone Him, and not for the first time.
Their hands are now full of stones. His hands are full of sheep — and so are the Father's.
He makes them as strong outside as inside. No weakness within could put them in danger, for what He gave was eternal life. No enemy outside could harm them, for He has the sheep in His hand. The hand that was nailed to the cross is the safe shelter and rest for all the sheep. What contrasts stir in the soul as we read those words, "My hand" — "My Father's hand!"
His words had already settled the question they came with. What follows is not debate, but stones — and hands too weak to throw them.
The Lord's words of living power, ending with "I and the Father are one," have fully proved, in answer to the Jews' question, that He is the Christ. But they react, not only in doubt, but in bitter hostility, taking up stones to stone Him. Yet they are powerless to carry out their base intentions. His word, calmly and simply spoken, has a power that holds them helpless. He had done many good works, He says, all of them coming from the Father. For which of these works did they mean to stone Him?
Their charge was that a man was making Himself God. Read from the other end, the same sentence becomes the gospel.
They did not understand the drift of His words. But they did see that in saying "I and the Father are one" He was claiming equality with God… To them it was terrible blasphemy — a man making himself God. We receive His words in the spirit of worship, for we know He was truly God, yet had made Himself Man. We reverse the terms of their accusation and find in it soul-saving truth.
This was more than a moment of anger. It marks the point where the Lord turned away from the nation.
At the end of the chapter the Jews take up stones to stone Him, because He made Himself equal with God. The Lord does not try to prove to them the truth of what He is. He shows instead that by their own principles and the testimony of the Scriptures they were wrong in this case. He appeals again to His own words and works as proof that He was in the Father and the Father in Him. Again they take up stones, and Jesus finally leaves them. It was all over with Israel.
- Hands that grab. The stones prove they heard Him right. He was claiming to be God, and a Man saying that enraged them.
- Hands that hold. "One" means one nature, not just one purpose. So the same power holds the sheep in His hand and in the Father's.
- Hands that fail. They lift stones and cannot throw them. His calm word holds them helpless, and He asks which good work deserves stoning.
- Hands that were nailed. The hand they attacked is the hand that became the shelter of His people at the cross.
- Hands that let go. Their charge was a man making himself God. Read the other way, it is the truth that saves. They refused it, and He left them.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewn you of my Father; for which work of them do ye stone me?
Stones are already in the hands of the crowd when Jesus speaks. He answers with no threat. He asks one question: which of His good works are they stoning Him for? That question makes His attackers name what they hate, and it shows what unbelief really is.
His claim to be one with the Father is what provoked the stones. Their answer is violence — and it goes nowhere.
The Lord's words had such living power. They ended with "I and My Father are one" (not "My Father and I"). In answer to the Jews' question in verse 24, those words have surely and fully proved that He is the Christ. But they react, not only in doubt, but in bitter hatred, and take up stones to stone Him. Yet they have no power to carry out their evil plan. His word, calmly and simply spoken, has power that holds them helpless.
They understood Him perfectly. Their problem was not the evidence but the lowly form in which grace had come.
The Jews understand well enough, and take up stones to stone Him: but the might of His presence stills them. He calmly appeals to them, asking which of the many good works He has shown them from the Father they are stoning Him for. They could not deny the power or the goodness. But they could not believe the grace that had brought the Son of God among them in such lowly form.
Jesus does not only say the works were many. He says where they came from. That link is His proof.
In perfect calmness the Lord appeals to the many good works that He had shown them from the Father. He thus connects His works with the Father as a proof that He had come from the Father. Had they then any fault to find with those works that show the goodness of the Father and the glory of Christ as the Son?
Every good thing has one source. That is where His works came from.
First of all we must realise that everything good has its ultimate source in God. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). The Lord Jesus, who revealed the Father here on earth, "went about doing good" (Acts 10:38), and so He could say to the Jews, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone Me?"
The works did not stand alone. His words came with them, and both had the same source.
Along with the words were the wonderful works of the Father, and they were works of a kind the world had never seen before. They also bore witness to the divine origin of the words. The words and the works were together… When they sought to stone Him, He asked them which of the good works He had shown them from the Father they were stoning Him for. They replied that it was not for the works, but the words! Surely the origin of the one was evidence of the origin of the other! They were too blind to see this.
They could not name one bad work. So the hatred had no cause in Him at all.
And yet despite His acts of love, and His words of grace, they rewarded Him evil for good, and hatred for His love (Ps. 109:5). Truly He could say, "They hated me without a cause." Sadly, there was plenty of cause for hatred, but no cause in Him. There was no cause in man to call out Christ's love, and no cause in Christ to call out man's hatred.
- Source — Every good work of Jesus came from the Father. The goodness they were about to stone was the Father's own.
- Proof — Those works were His evidence. They showed that He had come from the Father.
- Agreement — His words and His works said the same thing. To accept the works and reject the words is blindness, not reason.
- Silence — His accusers could not name one work worth stoning. His question left them with nothing to say.
- Cause — Man had plenty of cause for hatred. Christ gave none. They lifted stones against pure goodness.
The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Stones are already in the crowd's hands, because they heard Jesus claim to be God. Their charge raises the real question: was He blaspheming, or telling the truth about Himself?
The charge was not a misunderstanding.
They were right in saying that Jesus was a man; they were not wrong in understanding that He claimed to be God. But this was Satan's suggestion, working on man's unbelief in everything beyond his own senses and mind. The suggestion is that He who was God would never lower Himself to become man and accomplish redemption, not even in love to men and for the divine glory. Was it incredible that God should stoop so low for such worthy ends?
His humanity was never their problem. One writer shows what their admission is worth:
They were clear and decided about the Lord's real humanity. They said it without any hedging. They were right that He was a man. He had a body, He had a soul, He had a spirit — the three parts that make up a man (1 Thess. 5:23). No one who saw Him on earth, we suppose, doubted His real manhood. What made the Jews stumble was His claim to be a Divine Person. About His manhood the Christian faith is sure; and Christians, taught by God, own it fully and thankfully. How near that brings Him to us!
They were answering the words He had just spoken: "I and the Father are one." That claim is more than sharing a purpose.
The Lord's statement was a clear affirmation of His deity. He was not only one with the Father in purpose, but one with Him in essence and being. In this the Son and the Father were inseparable: they were one. This was the issue when the Lord Jesus stood before their council. Put on oath by the High Priest to say whether He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, His plain answer was, "I am" (Mark 14:62). As a result of that statement He was again accused of blasphemy and condemned to death.
If they had misread Him, one sentence could have ended it. Instead He defends the claim from their own Scriptures.
If their interpretation had been wrong, the Lord would have corrected such a terrible mistake at once. He would have rejected the claim to Deity. He does neither. Instead, He confirms His claim by appealing to their own Scriptures. He condemns them out of their own mouths for refusing His claim to Deity. Quoting from Psalm 82:6, the Lord asks, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" God set apart men to be judges in Israel as His representatives, and His word came to them. Scripture calls them gods. Can it then be blasphemy for the Son to claim to be a divine Person — the Son whom the Father has set apart and sent into the world?
He let the charge stand. That leaves every reader with the choice the crowd faced.
If we believe that pure truth flowed from His lips, we must accept this word as it stands. We have no alternative; to refuse it is to brand our Lord as the supreme impostor of all time. It was a great declaration, and we must admit that for a man to make it opens up a tremendous question. If He was not what He said He was, those Jews were right when they took up those stones to stone Him for blasphemy. If He lied, He was neither God nor from God, for "it is impossible for God to lie."
The charge turns back on the accusers. They could not accept that God would stoop so low.
To their blinded and furious minds it was blasphemy for Him to say that He gave His followers eternal life, beyond the weakness or the power of any creature. It was blasphemy for Him to say that He and the Father were one. Yet this is the truth, so vital and necessary that no one who rejects it can be saved. His words were as good as His works, and even more important to man; and both came from the Father. He whom God sent, as John testified, spoke the words of God. It was they who blasphemed, denying Him to be God, who in grace to them stooped to become man.
The same truth that armed their hands is what steadies faith. Commenting on their words, one writer answers them in a single line:
In very truth, that He is so is our hope.
- Heard rightly. The accusers understood Him exactly: He was a man, and He was claiming to be God.
- Meant fully. "I and the Father are one" means one in essence and being. That same claim later condemned Him before the High Priest.
- Never withdrawn. He would have corrected a mistaken charge on the spot. Instead He proves it from Psalm 82.
- Only two verdicts. Either He is God, or He is the greatest impostor of all time, and the crowd was right to stone Him.
- Blasphemy reversed. The real blasphemy was theirs: they denied that He is God, when He had stooped in grace to become man.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
The Jews have picked up stones, charging Jesus with blasphemy for making Himself God. His reply reaches back to a single line in their own Scriptures. Why does that line settle the matter?
The words Jesus quotes come from Psalm 82, yet He calls them part of "your Law." He uses the term more widely than the five books of Moses.
The New Testament sometimes uses the term "law" for other parts of the Old Testament besides the five books of Moses. The Lord said, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" when the quotation was from the Psalms.
The word behind "gods" is Elohim. In the Psalm it describes men holding an office.
The Lord Jesus quoted Psalm 82 verse 6: "I said, You are gods." The word for "gods" in this verse is Elohim. In the Psalm, as elsewhere, it describes the men who were set to judge in Israel (Psa. 82:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28). They were God's representatives. Their task was to judge for the Lord, in His fear, and to apply the revelation God had given in His Word to the cases brought before them.
The title belonged to the office they held.
It is calling judges "gods" because they stood as sent in God's place and acted for God in their office. We know that all power is of God, and ought to be exercised in His righteousness. This eighty-second Psalm judges them.
He meets them on their own ground, without asserting what He is.
He reasons from the lesser to the greater, and the argument is decisive. Every Jew knew that their inspired books call judges elohim (gods) — Psalm 82, for instance. God commissioned those men and held them responsible to judge in His name. Scripture could use such a title of a mere magistrate, and its authority cannot be undone. The Father set His own Son apart and sent Him into the world. How unreasonable, then, to charge Him with blasphemy because He said He was God's Son! He is not affirming or proving here what He is. He only shows them, out of their own law, how perverse they are. They had not the least excuse while they claimed to hold to their law as divine. If God called the judges by His name because they were His representatives, how much more did that name belong to Him Whose place was unique?
Jesus never tells His accusers they have misread Him.
If they had read Him wrongly, the Lord would have corrected such a terrible mistake at once and rejected the claim to Deity. He does neither. Instead He confirms His claim by appealing to their own Scriptures. He condemns them out of their own mouth for refusing His claim to Deity.
Notice how narrow the ground of the argument is.
In John 10:34-36, the argument depends on a single word — gods. The Lord Himself appeals to that word as settling the point — an appeal to a single word in the Old Testament as authoritative and final.
And the line He quotes is not a famous one.
Our Lord is quoting what some might be tempted to call an obscure passage from the Psalms. It is simply an obvious explanation, men might say, of no great importance, and yet our Lord declares it cannot be ignored. It is a part of a perfect whole.
The aim of the answer was not persuasion.
You see He does not reason with the Jews to convince them, but to silence them.
And silenced they were, at least for the moment.
To this appeal to their Scriptures what could they say? "You, being a man, make Yourself God," was their accusation. That Psalm silenced them. They dropped the stones that they had just taken up.
- Their book. Jesus answers the stone-throwers from "your Law" — a phrase that here covers the Psalms, not only the books of Moses.
- Their word. "Gods" translates Elohim. Israel used it for judges who stood in God's place and answered to Him.
- Their logic. If Scripture calls mere judges by that title, the charge of blasphemy against the Father's sent One falls apart.
- Their Scripture. Jesus treats one word from an easily overlooked psalm as final — nothing in Scripture can be set aside.
- Their silence. He answered to stop their mouths, and the stones fell from their hands.
If he called *them* gods to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken),
Stones are already in the hands of the men listening to Him, and the charge is blasphemy: a man making Himself God. Jesus answers with one line from an old psalm, not a fresh claim. He rests the whole reply on a statement about the Bible itself.
Jesus makes His case from Israel's own Scriptures. If Scripture can hand God's own name to ordinary officials, the charge against Him collapses.
He meets them on their own ground with an argument from the lesser to the greater. That argument left His personal glory untouched... Every Jew knew that their inspired books call judges elohim (gods) — Psalm 82, for instance. God commissioned these men, and they were responsible to judge in His name. If Scripture could use such a title of a mere magistrate, the charge against Him makes no sense. And the authority of Scripture cannot be undone. He said He was God's Son. The Father had set Him apart and sent Him into the world. To call that blasphemy is unreasonable.
The men in Psalm 82 were Israel's judges. The title was not flattery. It marked the office they held and the word God sent to them.
This quotation of the elohim shows, I think, that it applies to Jews in the strict sense. The law there calls the judges elohim in so many words. That makes the Lord's rebuke most powerful... It also shows what that word elohim means in the law, and how foolish the dispute is between judges and God. The law calls judges "gods" because they stood as sent in God's place and acted for God in their office.
The line He picks is not a famous prophecy. It is a passing explanation of a title. That is what makes His comment so strong.
Our Lord is quoting what some might be tempted to call an obscure passage from the Psalms (Psalm 82:6)... Our Lord says this Scripture cannot be broken — it cannot be set aside. Men might say it is only an obvious explanation of no great importance. Yet our Lord declares that no one can ignore it. It is part of a perfect whole... Every word and syllable is woven into this Scripture, and you cannot tear out one part without tearing the whole.
The word "Scripture" here comes with no limits and no exceptions.
Nothing can be more definite, nothing wider in reach, than this. He does not say that one passage or another is guided or guarded because it matters more. He says "Scripture," as Scripture — "Scripture cannot be broken." Take the statement that "In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them." Take any other statement, however small it looks to us. If Scripture makes it, its truth is certain.
The base of His argument is narrow. He does not appeal to a chapter or a theme, but to one noun.
In John 10:34-36 the argument depends on a single word — gods. The Lord Himself appeals to that word as settling the point. He treats one word in the Old Testament as authoritative and final.
His hearers had understood Him to be claiming to be God. He lets that reading stand.
If their interpretation had been wrong, the Lord would surely have corrected such a terrible mistake at once. He would have rejected the claim to Deity. He does neither. Instead He confirms His claim by appealing to their own Scriptures. He condemns them out of their own mouths for refusing His claim to Deity.
There is a limit to what He is doing here. He answers a charge; He does not open a discussion.
They took up stones to stone Him. And you see, He does not reason with the Jews to convince them, but to silence them.
His use of Scripture here was no isolated debating move. It was how He lived.
It is as if our Lord declared that He stood or fell with the word of God. If it were not true, neither was He. And so indeed it must be. He who is holy and true has given His approval to all Scripture as true. By it He met Satan and defeated him. He appealed to it in His teaching. He quoted from it again and again in all His conflicts with the unbelieving Pharisees and others.
- Word came. God's word reached the judges of Israel, and they stood in His place in office. That alone is why Scripture calls them "gods" — a borrowed name, not a shared nature.
- Word written. Jesus treats that small, passing line as impossible to set aside. Every word is woven into Scripture; pull one thread and the whole tears.
- Word enough. One noun in one verse carries the whole argument. The Lord treats a single word as authoritative and final.
- Word in person. Men who only received the word could carry that title. So the charge of blasphemy against the One the Father set apart and sent is unjust. He never takes the claim back.
- Word trusted. Christ staked Himself on the written Word. He used it against Satan, in His teaching, and in every dispute. If Scripture were not true, neither was He.
do ye say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God?
The Jews had charged Jesus with blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God. He does not soften the claim. He answers them from their own Scriptures. His reply turns on one word: older translations read "sanctified" where the ESV has "consecrated." What does it mean for the Father to set someone apart and send Him?
The word cannot mean the Father made the Son holier. One writer asks the question and answers it:
What a remarkable thing that the Father had sanctified Him. Could He ever be more holy than He was? God forbid the thought. It means simply this: the Father had set apart His blessed and only Son, and sent Him into this world to bring God to man, to reveal God, and to make God known here. It was a totally new position for the Son of God to occupy.
The order of the words matters. He was set apart first, then sent:
… the Father set apart the Son for Himself long before He came into the world. There was also a public side to it, when the Holy Spirit came from heaven and rested on Him. It is wonderful to think of the Father setting the Son apart to do His will, and to see how the sending of the Son does that will. This is but one aspect of the coming of the Son, for not only was He sent, He came of His own will.
The reason lay not in any need of His own, but in ours:
To be sanctified is to be set apart to God. Here in John 10 the Lord says that the Father set the Son apart for one express purpose: to come into the world so that we might have life through Him. It was not for any need of His own or because of any requirement upon Him. It was on our behalf, because in the end it would lead Him into the work that He did at Calvary for our blessing.
Their own law gives the title "god" to a mere judge. Jesus reasons from that smaller case to the greater:
He meets them on their own ground with an argument from the lesser to the greater, and it left His personal glory untouched… If Scripture can use such a title of a mere magistrate, and its authority cannot be broken, then the charge is unreasonable. They accused the One whom the Father set apart and sent into the world of blasphemy, because He said He was God's Son! He is not stating or proving what He is here. He is only proving them stubbornly wrong from their own law.
The judges held a borrowed title. The Son held a place that was His own:
He had claimed His own divinity in the plainest way: "I and the Father are one." They said this was making Himself God… He was not merely one "to whom the word of God came." He was the One whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world. He could say, "I am the Son of God."… To the others the word of God had only come: "I have said, You are gods." They had no dignity at all in themselves. They were earthly men, whom God had raised to an official dignity. But He was the SON… The moment God took back the dignity He gave them, they would die like ordinary men. They had no essential, inherent power or dignity. But He was one with the Father.
If they had misread Him, this was the moment to say so:
If they had understood Him wrongly, the Lord would surely have corrected such a terrible mistake at once and denied the claim to Deity. He does neither. Instead the Lord confirms His claim from their own Scriptures. He condemns them out of their own mouth for refusing His claim to Deity… Men were set apart to be judges in Israel, as God's representatives, and the word of God came to them. If Scripture calls them gods, can it be blasphemy for the Son, whom the Father has set apart and sent into the world, to claim to be a divine Person?
- Set apart — "Sanctified" means given a new position, not made holier. He could never be more holy than He already was.
- Set apart first — The Father set Him apart long before sending Him. The Spirit resting on Him made it public. He was sent, and He also came of His own will.
- Set apart for us — Not for any need of His own, but for ours: that we might have life through Him. That path led to Calvary.
- Set apart above them — The judges wore a borrowed title and would die like other men. The Son's dignity was His own. He was one with the Father.
- Set apart, not stepping back — Charged with blasphemy, He answers from their own law. He never takes back the claim they understood.
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not;
At the Feast of Dedication, in the temple, Jesus called Himself the Son of God, and His hearers picked up stones to kill Him. Instead of arguing back, He hands them a test they can carry out themselves — and He is willing to lose the case if the evidence fails.
Jesus gives His opponents permission to disbelieve Him. He sets one condition, and He rests His whole claim on it.
This was the closing point of faith. His dealings with the people ended here, on ample and conclusive evidence. The evidence of the Son is in the Father's works: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham." Our Lord submits Himself to the same evidence: "If I am not doing the works of my Father," whether in power or love, "good works," "then do not believe me. But if I do"; how could I be anything but the Son? If I do them, the evidence is complete.
Jesus does not say "my works" but the works of His Father. That points back to how He lived on earth: He never acted on His own.
He was not here to act as God, independently, for He said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing." He had come to act only in complete dependence on the Father. Yet no one but He who was equal with the Father could have said, "For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." He was acting from His conscious place in the Father's love and in perfect communion with Him. So all His works were the Father's works, the expression of the Father's nature and will, flowing from this divine communion. His works revealed the Father.
His hearers had watched Him work, and the kind of work He did was itself the proof.
To His persecutors He said, "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me." They could not deny those works of mercy, grace, love and power, done by the Righteous, Just, Holy and True. They showed the Father's Name. They made clear what the Father is to those who had eyes to see, and to our faith today as well. As we have said, He came in His Father's Name.
This verse is the negative half of a pair. The next verse completes it: if they will not believe His words, the works still stand as witness.
The works of His Father done by Him confirmed all this in the fullest way. In the power they displayed, they implied the Father abiding in Him, and He abiding in the Father in close communion. So there was enough witness to the truth of His claims. If they did not believe His words, they might at least believe His works.
This lower step did not lower who He is. And proof on its own never creates faith.
There was no denying the irresistible force of this appeal. The character of the works bore witness not only to Divine power, but to that power in the fullness of love. Whatever they thought of Him, the works were unmistakable, so that they might learn and come to know the unity of the Father and the Son. He was not weakening the dignity of His Person, or the truth of His words. He was pleading with them, and dealing with their consciences, by those works — works that attested the grace of God as much as the power. But self-will holds out against all proofs.
Anyone could watch these works and weigh them. That is what makes refusing Him so serious.
The miracles of our Lord appeal to man's senses. They produce both wonder and amazement, and so become a public witness to the greatness of the Worker. If the works of God in creation leave man without excuse, what of these mighty and mysterious workings of His power? … God is clearly seen in creation, and He has not left Himself without witness in the sphere of providence. So the voice of Immanuel brought the blessed God near to men: silencing the storm, removing disease, commanding demons and raising the dead — works which also appealed to reason.
- Tested. Jesus offers His enemies a fair test and accepts the risk: if the works of His Father are missing, do not believe Him.
- Sourced. They are the Father's works because the Son acted in complete dependence and communion, so everything He did revealed the Father.
- Merciful. The evidence He points to is mercy, grace, love and power — a witness to the Father's heart, not only to raw might.
- Lowered. When they refused His words, He offered a lower step: believe the works, and let them lead you back to the truth about His Person.
- Inexcusable. He met His own test in full, so unbelief shows self-will, not lack of proof.
but if I do, even if ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know [and believe] that the Father is in me and I in him.
In Jerusalem the Jews had picked up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy. He does not soften His claim. Instead He points them to what they had watched Him do. The works themselves say who He is. They show a unity between the Father and the Son that belongs to no one else.
Jesus offers His hearers a test and then puts Himself under it. He lets what He does settle the question of who He is.
Our Lord accepts the same test: "If I am not doing the works of My Father" — whether in power or in love, "good works" — "then do not believe Me. But if I do"; how could I be anything else? If I do, the evidence is complete: "even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know." The works prove it beyond question. They show one thought, one purpose, one design, one glory. Everything about their character showed that the Father dwelt in Him, and He in the Father.
The works were not bare displays of strength. Their character carried the argument, and it pressed on the conscience.
There was no denying the irresistible force of this appeal. The character of the works bore testimony not only to divine power, but to power in the fullness of love. Whatever they thought of Him, the works were unmistakable. By them they might learn and come to know the unity of the Father and the Son. He was not weakening the dignity of His Person or the truth of His words. He was pleading with them and dealing with their consciences by works. Those works attested the grace of God no less than His power. But self-will holds out against all proofs.
Jesus makes two statements here, not one. Each half points to something different.
The works implied that the Father was abiding in Him, seen in the power He displayed. They also implied that He was abiding in the Father, seen in His close communion. So there was enough witness to the truth of His claims. If they would not believe His words, they might at least believe His works.
The second half carries the greater weight. It is a claim to Sonship, not merely to God dwelling in a man.
He claimed the glory of Sonship in His works. They were the evidence of what He was from the Father. They showed to faith that the Father was in Him. And the Father did not simply dwell in Him as a Man: He was in the Father too. Both are alike true — "the Father in Me, and I in Him." This is a blessed sentence.
Telling unbelievers to start with the works is itself an act of kindness. Yet the miracles were never meant to stand alone as the ground of faith.
Man does not like to come to the light, because his deeds are evil. So God in grace gives evidences, miracles if you like, when the revelation of the truth is there... And this is great grace... Where faith was founded only on miracles, the Lord did not own it; there was nothing moral in it. But He did give miracles to help men believe the holy truth of love.
They objected to His words and left His deeds alone — as if the two came from different sources.
They said it was not for the works, but for the words! Surely the origin of the one bore witness to the origin of the other! They were too blind to see this... the Lord showed that their sin was inexcusable, for in these things they had seen and hated both the Son and the Father... Yet despite that hatred, the Son did the works of the Father. They displayed the Father's mercy, kindness, grace, compassion, tenderness and love, as well as His power. Faith could appreciate this and rejoice in it.
- Works as test. Christ names the test He is willing to be judged by: no works of the Father, no reason to believe Him.
- Works as witness. Their character testifies as much as their power — grace and love, not only might.
- Works as doorway. If His Person is too much to accept at first, He offers a lower step: start with what you saw Him do.
- Works as grace. Evidence is a mercy, not a debt God owes; but faith resting on miracles alone was never the faith He owned.
- Works as verdict. The goal is to know that the Father is in Him and He in the Father. Where people refuse that, self-will is the reason, not lack of proof.
They sought therefore again to take him; and he went away from out of their hand
Jesus has just pointed to His works as proof that the Father is in Him and He in the Father. They answer with one more try at seizing Him — so why can they never hold Him?
Their hostility changes shape here. Moments earlier they had picked up stones; now they try arrest instead. One writer explains what stopped the stoning.
To this appeal to their Scriptures what could they say? "You, being a man, make yourself God," was their accusation. The psalm He had quoted silenced them. They dropped the stones that they had just taken up, with which to stone Him for blasphemy. They would settle for arresting Him, if they could. Still they failed.
The ESV says He "escaped" from their hands. One writer finds that word too dramatic for what happened.
Unable to answer His words, "they sought again to take Him"; but He "went away from out" (not "escaped out of") their hand. Man had now fully shown himself: the light had shone in darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it. His guilt was shown by his refusal of the One the Father sent. His spiritual death was shown too: there was not the slightest response to the presence of God before their eyes in the person of His beloved Son.
Their rejection was now complete. So why did their plan fail?
So it was not that their unbelief was incomplete. It was that His time had not yet come. The Lord therefore retires until the moment appointed by God.
Earlier in this same chapter Jesus had said that no one takes His life from Him. Verse 39 is that statement in action.
No man takes my life from me! That means it was impossible for men to kill Him. In intent they did it; they spared no effort to bring Him down to death. But when they had done all, He laid down His life of His own will, as a sacrifice for sin. He did not die by the violence of men, nor by any natural cause.
Where He goes next matters as much as His leaving. They had already thrown out a man for confessing Him, and now the Shepherd goes out too.
So He went away beyond Jordan. Already they had cast out the man who had confessed Christ; now the Shepherd, utterly rejected by the nation, takes the outside place of reproach. In that outside place "many resorted to Him" and "many believed on Him there". So the Shepherd becomes the Leader of His flock outside the Jewish fold.
- Rejected. Their own Scriptures silenced them, so they dropped the stones. They still reached for Him.
- Restrained. They wanted Him and could not have Him. What held them off was not some faith left in them, but God's appointed time.
- Reserved. His death waited on His will, not theirs. No one took His life; He laid it down.
- Removed. He did not scramble out of danger. He walked out from their hand, and left them exposed: God stood in front of them and they did not respond.
- Received. Cast out by the nation, the Shepherd took the outside place, and there many believed. Rejection by the nation became gathering outside it.