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

“(viii. de Trin. c. 5) The heretics, since they cannot gainsay these words, endeavour by an impious lie to explain them away. They maintain that this unity is unanimity only; a unity of will, not of nature; i. e. that the two are one, not in that they are the same, but in that they will the same. But they are one, not by any economy merely, but by the nativity of the Son’s nature, since there is no falling off of the Father’s divinity in begetting Him. They are one whilst the sheep that are not plucked out of the Son’s hand, are not plucked out of the Father’s hand: whilst in Him working, the Father worketh; whilst He is in the Father, and the Father in Him. This unity, not creation but nativity, not will but power, not unanimity but nature accomplisheth. But we deny not therefore the unanimity of the Father and Son; for the heretics, because we refuse to admit concord in the place of unity, accuse us of making a disagreement between the Father and Son. We deny not unanimity, but we place it on the ground of unity. The Father and Son are one in respect of nature, honour, and virtue: and the same nature cannot will different things.”

“After the Lord showed that he has life-giving power, and hinted at the manner of giving life, here he shows in respect of what the life-giving power belongs to him; and first the Evangelist sets forth the dissension that arose over this among the crowds toward one another; second he sets forth the dispute of the leaders of the Jews with Christ, at "the feast of the dedication was made," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth the very dissension of the crowds; second he adds the opinion of one dissenting party; third he brings in the sound assertion of the other party. Now the dissension arose among the crowds who had heard Christ, from his words: and this is what he says, "a dissension therefore arose among the Jews because of these words." For while some of them understood these words rightly, and some not rightly, they dissented from one another; Matthew 10:34: "I have not come to send peace, but the sword," namely of evangelical teaching, which some believe and others contradict; Psalm 106:40: "contention was poured out upon princes." But the opinion of the other dissenting party is false: and as to this he says, "but many of them said." He says "many," because, as is said in Ecclesiastes 1:15, "the number of fools is infinite." They said, I say, "he has a demon, and he raves." For it is the custom of fools always to interpret doubtful matters for the worse, though the contrary ought to be done. Hence it happens that whatever they do not understand, they blaspheme, as is said in the canonical letter of Jude. Therefore, because they were not able to understand the words of the Lord — since "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" — they therefore blaspheme, saying, "he has a demon, and he raves." And they strive to turn others away from him, saying, "why do you listen to him?" But in blaspheming, they impute two things to Christ. First, that he has a demon; as if they were to say: he speaks not from the Holy Spirit, but from an evil spirit. A similar thing is said in Acts 17:18, of Paul: "he is a proclaimer of new demons." Now it happens that someone may have a demon as a private and familiar companion; and such a one, although he always raves spiritually, does not, however, always rave bodily; but another may be seized by a demon, and such a one always raves bodily as well. Hence in Mark 3:21 they said, "because he has gone out of his mind." Second, in order to show that Christ has a demon in this way, they say "and he raves." Acts 26:24: "much learning brings you to madness." Nor is it a wonder if they blaspheme, since they are animal men, and, as is said in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God." But the judgment and assertion of the other party disproves the aforesaid opinion in two ways. First, from the weight of the words; hence he says, "others" — namely, those who were rightly wise — "said: these are not the words of one who has a demon"; as if they were to say: from these it appears that he does not rave, since they are ordered and weighty; above, John 6:69: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." Hence Paul says in Acts 26:25: "I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of truth and soberness." Second, from the greatness of the miracle; hence he says, "can a demon open the eyes of the blind?" As if to say: was not this a very great miracle? And therefore they rightly believed that it could not be done except by the power of God; above, John 9:33: "if this man were not from God, he could do nothing." Now it must be known that there are certain miracles which can be done by the power of demons and angels; but there are others which can in no way be done by their power. For those things which are above the order of nature, no creature whatsoever, by its own power, can do, since it too is subject to the laws of nature. But God alone, who is above nature, can operate above the order of nature. Whatever, then, any creature works, it must remain within the order of nature. From this it is clear that whatever can be done according to the order of nature, both the good angel and the evil angel can do, when it is permitted to him. Just as, according to the seeds which are present in natural things and ordered to the generation of certain animals, they can bring about the generation of those animals; as the magicians of Pharaoh did, Exodus 7:11. And likewise they can alter the nature of something: hence they could heal the sick, to whom help could come by the benefit of nature. But those things which simply transcend the order of nature cannot be done except by God, or by good angels and holy men through the power of God, which they obtain by praying. Such is the giving of light to the blind and the raising of the dead: for the power of nature cannot extend itself to the restoration of eyes and the raising of the dead. And therefore a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, and raise the dead: because this belongs to God alone, and to the saints through the power of God. Here is set forth the dissension which was raised by the leaders of the Jews against Christ; and first the Evangelist proposes the question of the Jews; second he adds Christ's response, at "Jesus answered them: I speak to you"; third he brings in the effect of the response, at "the Jews took up stones." Concerning the first he does two things. First he describes the circumstances of the question; second he sets forth the question itself, at "they said to him: how long do you hold our soul in suspense?" Now he describes the circumstances of the question as to three things: namely as to time, as to place, and as to the persons questioning. As to time indeed, first in particular, saying, "the feast of the dedication was made at Jerusalem." For the understanding of this it must be known that, as Augustine says, the encaenia was the feast of dedication in the churches. For "kainos" in Greek is the same as "new" in Latin. Hence "encaenia" is the same as "renewal": from which it happens that even in common usage of speech, when something is dedicated to some use, it is said to be "encaeniated," which is the same as "renewed." "The feast of the dedication was made, therefore, at Jerusalem," that is, the feast and memorial of the dedication of the temple. For when we newly dedicate some church to divine worship, the feast of its consecration is held, and on the same day each year, in memory of it. In this way the Jews held the encaenia each year, that is, the memorial of the dedication of the temple. Now to know the reason and cause of the feast of consecration, it must be noted that all feasts are celebrated in the Church in commemoration of divine benefits; Isaiah 63:7: "I will remember the mercies of the Lord," etc. And in Psalm 117:1, after David had commemorated the many benefits of God, saying, "give praise to the Lord, for he is good," etc., he adds: "appoint a solemn day, with thick boughs, even to the horn of the altar." Now we recall the divine benefits shown to us in three ways. Sometimes indeed as shown to us in our Head, the Lord Jesus Christ; and thus we celebrate the feast of the Nativity, and of the Resurrection, and the like. Sometimes as shown to us in our fellow members, namely in the saints, who are members of the Church. And this fittingly: because, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 12:26: "if one member glories, all the members rejoice together." And thus we celebrate the feasts of the saints Peter and Paul and other saints. And sometimes as they are shown to the whole Church; for instance in the ministry of the sacraments, and in other things commonly conferred on the Church. And because the material house is, as it were, a sign of the gathering of the Church of the faithful, and also in it all the sacraments of grace are dispensed; therefore in memory of these benefits, we celebrate the feast of the dedication of the church. This feast indeed is greater than the feast of any saint; just as the benefits conferred on the whole Church, whose memory we keep, exceed the benefit conferred on any one saint, which is recalled in his feast. It must be known, however, that the temple at Jerusalem was consecrated three times. First indeed by Solomon, as is found in 3 Kings 8; second, in the time of Ezra, by Zerubbabel and Jesus the high priest, as is found in 1 Esdras 6:13-22; third by the Maccabees, as is found in 1 Maccabees 4:42-58, that they went up to Jerusalem to renew the holy things. Now this encaenia was not made in memory of the dedication which was made by Solomon, because that was in autumn, namely in the seventh month; nor in memory of the dedication which was made in the time of Ezra, because that was in spring, namely on the ninth day of March; but in memory of the dedication which was made by the Maccabees in wintertime. And therefore, to signify this, he describes the time in particular, saying "and it was winter": which also has a mystical cause. As Gregory says, in Moralia II, the Evangelist took care to express the time of winter for this reason, that he might indicate the cold present in the hearts of the hearers, namely the malice of the Jews; Jeremiah 6:7: "as a cistern makes its water cold, so has she made her malice cold." Of this winter it is said, Song of Songs 2:11: "for now the winter is past, the rain is over and gone." Now he describes the place when he says "and Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch." And first indeed in general, when he says "in the temple": Psalm 10:5: "the Lord is in his holy temple," etc.; second in particular, saying "in Solomon's porch." For it must be known that "temple" is said not only of its body, but also of the surrounding porticoes, in which the people stood to pray: for in the temple only the priests prayed. Now "Solomon's porch" is the name given to that place in which Solomon stood when, the dedication of the temple having been completed, he prayed: 3 Kings 8:22: "Solomon therefore stood in the sight of the assembly of Israel." But against this: the temple which Solomon had built was destroyed, and likewise Solomon's porch. Response: it must be said that the temple was rebuilt in the likeness of the former one; and therefore, just as before that porch was called Solomon's, so also afterward, out of reverence for him. Now he describes the persons questioning as to their malice. Hence he says, "the Jews therefore surrounded him" — cold in the charity of loving, but burning with the eagerness of harming — so that they approached with a mind to circumvent, and surrounded him pressing in, with a mind to persecute; Psalm 21:13: "many calves have surrounded me, fat bulls have besieged me"; Hosea 11:12: "Ephraim has surrounded me." Consequently, when he says "and they said to him," etc., the question of the Jews is set forth. And first he sets forth the feigned cause of the question, when he says, "how long do you hold our soul in suspense?" They speak flatteringly, wishing thereby to show that they desire to know the truth about him. As if to say: our soul is in the suspense of desire — how long do you leave us sorrowful? Proverbs 13:12: "hope that is deferred afflicts the soul." And therefore, second, they add the question, saying, "if you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Here first note their perversity. For because they are indignant against Christ, that he called himself the Son of God, above, John 5:18, they do not ask him whether he is the Son of God, but say, "if you are the Christ, tell us plainly": so that through this they might have material for accusing him before Pilate, as one seditious and seeking a kingdom, which was against Caesar, and hateful to the Romans. Hence also Pilate, when the Jews accused Christ of making himself the Son of God, cared little. But when they said, "everyone who makes himself a king contradicts Caesar," he began to be more troubled against him. And therefore they say, "if you are the Christ" — that is, either king, or anointed one — "tell us plainly." Second, consider their wickedness, in that they say "plainly"; as if to say: up till now he has not taught publicly, but as it were in secret — although in fact he said everything plainly, always being present at the festivals, and spoke nothing in secret; below, John 18:20: "I have spoken openly to the world; I have said nothing in secret." Here is set forth Christ's response: in which he shows their unfaithfulness, showing that what they had said was false, namely that they desired to know the truth, saying, "how long do you hold our soul in suspense?" etc. And this as to two things. First, because they did not believe his words; and as to this he says, "I speak to you, and you do not believe." As if to say: you say to me, "if you are the king, the Christ, tell us"; but I do speak — that is, I tell you the truth — and you do not believe; Luke 22:67: "if I tell you, you will not believe," etc. Second, that they do not believe his works; and as to this he says, "the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me." Here first he shows their unbelief with respect to the works themselves; second, the reason for their unbelief, at "because you are not of my sheep." As to the first he says "the works that I do"; as if to say: you cannot be persuaded even by the word alone to be silent; but neither even by so many works that I do in my Father's name — that is, to his glory — "these bear witness of me," because, namely, they cannot be done except by God: hence from them it plainly appears that I have come from God. Matthew 18:33: "each tree is known by its fruit"; above, John 5:36: "the works that I do bear witness of me. But you do not believe"; below, John 12:37: "although he had done so many signs, they did not believe in him." And therefore they are inexcusable; below, John 15: "if I had not done among them the works that no other has done, they would not have sin. But now they have both seen, and have hated both me and my Father." Now the reason for their unbelief is their separation from the sheep of Christ; hence he says, "therefore you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep." Concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth their exclusion from the fellowship of the sheep of Christ; second he shows the dignity of the sheep, at "my sheep hear my voice," etc.; third he proves something he had said, namely that no one will snatch his sheep out of his hand, at "my Father, what he has given me, is greater than all." He sets forth their separation from his sheep, saying, "you are not of my sheep" — that is, predestined to believe, but foreknown for eternal ruin. For this very thing, that we believe, is from God to us; Philippians 1:29: "to you it has been given, not only that you should believe in him, but also that you should suffer for him"; Ephesians 2:8: "by grace you are saved, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." This indeed is given to no one, except to him for whom it has been prepared from eternity; and therefore only those will believe in him who have been ordained to this by God through eternal predestination; Acts 13:48: "as many as were preordained to eternal life believed." And the same book, 15:11: "we believe to be saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." But ought it to be said to anyone that he is not predestined? It seems not; for since no one can be saved unless predestined, if it is said to someone that he is not predestined, he seems to be forced into despair. Therefore the Lord, saying to the Jews, "you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep," was forcing them to despair. Response: it must be said that in that crowd there was something common to all, namely that they were not preordained by God to believe at that time; and something particular, namely that some of them were preordained to believe afterward — hence they also believed afterward, as is found in Acts 2:41, that three thousand of them believed in one day; but there were others who were not preordained to this. It was not, therefore, contrary to hope, to say, to a crowd in which some were preordained to believe afterward, that they were not of the sheep: because no one could definitely suspect this of himself. But it would have been contrary to hope, if he had said this definitely to some particular person. Now he sets forth the dignity of his sheep, saying "my sheep hear my voice," etc., where he sets forth four things. Two on our part, which we do with respect to Christ; and two on Christ's part, which he himself does in us, corresponding to one another in turn. The first, then, which we do, is obedience to Christ; and as to this he says, "my sheep" — namely through predestination — "hear my voice," believing, and obeying my precepts; Psalm 94:8: "today if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts." The second, corresponding first, which Christ does, is his love and approval; and as to this he says, "and I know them," that is, I love and approve; 2 Timothy 2:19: "the Lord knows who are his." As if to say: this very fact that they hear me, is this — that I know them, choosing them from eternity. But if no one can believe otherwise unless it is given to him by God, it seems that unbelief ought not be imputed to anyone. To this it must be said that it is imputed to them for this reason: that in them is the cause why it is not given to them — just as I cannot see light unless I am illumined by the sun; but if I were to close my eyes I would not see the light, and this would not be on the part of the sun but on my part, who, by closing my eyes, furnish the cause that I am not illumined. Now sin is the cause why we are not illumined by God through faith — for instance original sin, or, in some, actual sin. And this cause indeed is present in all. Hence all those who are abandoned, are abandoned by the just judgment of God, and those who are chosen, are taken up by the mercy of God. The third, which is on our part, is imitation of Christ; and as to this he says, "and they follow me"; Job 23:11: "my foot has followed his steps"; 1 Peter 2:21: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps." The fourth, corresponding on Christ's part, is the repayment of a reward; and as to this he says, "and I give them eternal life," as if to say: they follow me, walking here the way of gentleness and innocence; and I will bring it about that afterward they will follow me, entering into the joys of eternal life. Now the Lord shows this reward to be unfailing, in three ways. For a thing can fail in three ways. First indeed from its own nature, for instance if it is corruptible; but this reward, as to its own nature, is incorruptible; hence he says, "I give them eternal life," which is the enjoyment of the incorruptible and immortal God; below, John 17:3: "this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." And, as Augustine says, these are the pastures of which he had spoken above. And eternal life is called good pasture because there no grass withers, all is green. Second, it can fail from a defect of the recipient, when the recipient fails and when he guards badly; but this will not happen in that reward, hence he says, "and they shall not perish forever," namely the sheep. This is against Origen, who said that at some time the saints who are in glory will be able to sin. But the Lord said "they shall not perish," because they will be preserved forever; Revelation 3:12: "he who shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more." Third, it can fail from the violence of one who snatches away: for perhaps not even Adam would have been shut out, had not the seducer been present. But in eternal life this will not be, hence he says, "and no one shall snatch them" — namely the sheep — "out of my hand," that is, out of my protection and loving care; Wisdom 3:1: "the souls of the just are in the hand of God." For, as Augustine says, there neither does the wolf snatch, nor the thief carry off, nor the robber kill. Here he proves what he had said above about the dignity of the sheep, namely that no one will snatch them out of his hand, by the following reasoning: that which is in my Father's hand, no one can snatch; but the hand of the Father and mine is the same; therefore that which is in my hand, likewise no one can snatch. Concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth the minor premise, manifesting the communication of the divinity handed down to him from the Father, when he says, "my Father, what he has given me" — namely through eternal generation — "is greater than all." For above, John 5:26: "as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to the Son also to have life in himself." Likewise it is greater in power; above, John 5:27: "he has given him power to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man." Likewise it is greater in reverence and honor; Philippians 2:9: "he has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow." It is greater, then, than all, what the Father has given me — namely, that I should be his Word, that I should be his only-begotten, that I should be the splendor of his light. Second, he sets forth the excellence of the paternal power, which pertains to the major premise, when he says, "and no one can snatch" — that is, take away by violence, or steal away by stealth — "out of the hand" — that is, out of the power — "of my Father," or from me, who am the power of the Father; although it is better said of the power of the Father than "from me," as Augustine says. Now no one can snatch out of the Father's hand for this reason: that he is most strong, to whom violence cannot be done, and most wise, into whom ignorance cannot fall; Job 9:4: "he is wise in heart, and mighty in strength," etc. Third, he sets forth his unity with the Father, from which the conclusion follows. Hence he says, "I and the Father are one"; as if to say: therefore no one will snatch them out of my hand, because I and the Father are one, namely in unity of essence. For the nature of the Father and of the Son is the same. By this, moreover, a twofold error is excluded: namely that of Arius, who divided the essence, and that of Sabellius, who confounded the persons — so that we might thus be freed both from Charybdis and from Scylla. For by his saying "one," he frees you from Arius; for if one, then not diverse. But by his saying "we are," he frees you from Sabellius; for if "we are," then the Father and the Son are one and another. But the Arians, by the lie of their impiety, strive to deny this, saying that a creature is in some way one with God: hence in this way too the Son can be one with the Father. But this is clearly false, on three counts. First, from the very manner of speaking. For it is clear that "one" is said in the way that "being" is said; hence just as something is not called "being" simply except according to substance, so too it is not called "one" except according to substance or nature. Now a thing is said "simply" when it is said with nothing added. Because, then, it is said simply, "I and the Father are one," with nothing else added, it is clear that they are one according to substance and nature. But it is never found that God and a creature are one without something added, as in that text, 1 Corinthians 6:17: "he who cleaves to God is one spirit." Therefore it is clear that the Son of God is not one with the Father as a creature is. Second, from what he had said above, namely, "what the Father has given me is greater than all," and afterward he concludes, "I and the Father are one," as if to say: we are one to this extent, inasmuch as he has given me that which is greater than all. Third, it is clear from his intention: for the Lord proves that no one will snatch them out of his hand, by this — that no one can snatch out of the hand of his Father. This would not follow, if his power were less than the power of the Father. The Father and the Son, therefore, are one in nature, in honor, and in power.”

“We have here another rencounter between Christ and the Jews in the temple, in which it is hard to say which is more strange, the gracious words that came out of his mouth or the spiteful ones that came out of theirs. I. We have here the time when this conference was: It was at the feast of dedication, and it was winter, a feast that was annually observed by consent, in remembrance of the dedication of a new altar and the purging of the temple, by Judas Maccabaeus, after the temple had been profaned and the altar defiled; we have the story of it at large in the history of the Maccabees (lib. 1, cap. 4); we have the prophecy of it, Dan 8:13, Dan 8:14. See more of the feast, 2 Macc. 1:18. The return of their liberty was to them as life from the dead, and, in remembrance of it, they kept an annual feast on the twenty-fifth day of the month Cisleu, about the beginning of December, and seven days after. The celebrating of it was not confined to Jerusalem, as that of the divine feasts was, but every one observed it in his own place, not as a holy time (it is only a divine institution that can sanctify a day), but as a good time, as the days of Purim, Est 9:19. Christ forecasted to be now at Jerusalem, not in honour of the feast, which did not require his attendance there, but that he might improve those eight days of vacation for good purposes. II. The place where it was (Joh 10:23): Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch; so called (Act 3:11), not because built by Solomon, but because built in the same place with that which had borne his name in the first temple, and the name was kept up for the greater reputation of it. Here Christ walked, to observe the proceedings of the great sanhedrim that sat here (Psa 82:1); he walked, ready to give audience to any that should apply to him, and to offer them his services. He walked, as it should seem, for some time alone, as one neglected; walked pensive, in the foresight of the ruin of the temple. Those that have any thing to say to Christ may find him in the temple and walk with him there. III. The conference itself, in which observe, 1. A weighty question put to him by the Jews, Joh 10:24. They came round about him, to tease him; he was waiting for an opportunity to do them a kindness, and they took the opportunity to do him a mischief. Ill-will for good-will is no rare and uncommon return. He could not enjoy himself, no, not in the temple, his Father's house, without disturbance. They came about him, as it were, to lay siege to him: encompassed him about like bees. They came about him as if they had a joint and unanimous desire to be satisfied; came as one man, pretending an impartial and importunate enquiry after truth, but intending a general assault upon our Lord Jesus; and they seemed to speak the sense of their nation, as if they were the mouth of all the Jews: How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ tell us. (1.) They quarrel with him, as if he had unfairly held them in suspense hitherto. Tēn psuchēn hēmōn aireis - How long dost thou steal away our hearts? Or, take away our souls? So some read it; basely intimating that what share he had of the people's love and respect he did not obtain fairly, but by indirect methods, as Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel; and as seducers deceive the hearts of the simple, and so draw away disciples after them, Rom 16:18; Act 20:30. But most interpreters understand it as we do: "How long dost thou keep us in suspense? How long are we kept debating whether thou be the Christ or no, and not able to determine the question?" Now, [1.] It was the effect of their infidelity, and powerful prejudices, that after our Lord Jesus had so fully proved himself to be the Christ they were still in doubt concerning it; this they willingly hesitated about, when they might easily have been satisfied. The struggle was between their convictions, which told them he was Christ, and their corruptions, which said, No, because he was not such a Christ as they expected. Those who choose to be sceptics may, if they please, hold the balance so that the most cogent arguments may not weigh down the most trifling objections, but scales may still hang even. [2.] It was an instance of their impudence and presumption that they laid the blame of their doubting upon Christ himself, as if he made them to doubt by inconsistency with himself, whereas in truth they made themselves doubt by indulging their prejudices. If Wisdom's sayings appear doubtful, the fault is not in the object, but in the eye; they are all plain to him that understands. Christ would make us to believe; we make ourselves to doubt. (2.) They challenge him to give a direct and categorical answer whether he was the Messiah or no: "If thou be the Christ, as many believe thou art, tell us plainly, not by parables, as, I am the light of the world, and the good Shepherd, and the like, but totidem verbis - in so many words, either that thou art the Christ, or, as John Baptist, that thou art not," Joh 1:20. Now this pressing query of theirs was seemingly good; they pretended to be desirous to know the truth, as if they were ready to embrace it; but it was really bad, and put with an ill design; for, if he should tell them plainly that he was the Christ, there needed no more to make him obnoxious to the jealousy and severity of the Roman government. Every one knew the Messiah was to be a king, and therefore whoever pretended to be the Messiah would be prosecuted as a traitor, which was the thing they would have been at; for, let him tell them ever so plainly that he was the Christ, they would have this to say presently, Thou bearest witness of thyself, as they had said, Joh 8:13. 2. Christ's answer to this question, in which, (1.) He justifies himself as not at all accessary to their infidelity and skepticism, referring them, [1.] To what he had said: I have told you. He had told them that he was the Son of God, the Son of man, that he had life in himself, that he had authority to execute judgment, etc. And is not this the Christ then? These things he had told them, and they believed not; why then should they be told them again, merely to gratify their curiosity? You believed not. They pretended that they only doubted, but Christ tells them that they did not believe. Skepticism in religion is no better than downright infidelity. It is now for us to teach God how he should teach us, nor prescribe to him how plainly he should tell us his mind, but to be thankful for divine revelation as we have it. If we do not believe this, neither should we be persuaded if it were ever so much adapted to our humour. [2.] He refers them to his works, to the example of his life, which was not only perfectly pure, but highly beneficent, and of a piece with his doctrine; and especially to his miracles, which he wrought for the confirmation of his doctrine. It was certain that no man could do those miracles except God were with him, and God would not be with him to attest a forgery. (2.) He condemns them for their obstinate unbelief, notwithstanding all the most plain and powerful arguments used to convince them: "You believed not; and again, You believed not. You still are what you always were, obstinate in your unbelief." But the reason he gives is very surprising: "You believed not, because you are not of my sheep: you believe not in me, because you belong not to me." [1.] "You are not disposed to be my followers, are not of a tractable teachable temper, have no inclination to receive the doctrine and law of the Messiah; you will not herd yourselves with my sheep, will not come and see, come and hear my voice." Rooted antipathies to the gospel of Christ are the bonds of iniquity and infidelity. [2.] "You are not designed to be my followers; you are not of those that were given me by my Father, to be brought to grace and glory. You are not of the number of the elect; and your unbelief, if you persist in it, will be a certain evidence that you are not." Note, Those to whom God never gives the grace of faith were never designed for heaven and happiness. What Solomon saith of immorality is true of infidelity, It is a deep ditch, and he that is abhorred of the Lord shall fall therein, Pro 22:14. Non esse electum, non est causa incredulitatis propri dicta, sed causa per accidens. Fides autem est donum Dei et effectus praedestinationis - The not being included among the elect is not the proper cause of infidelity, but merely the accidental cause. But faith is the gift of God, and the effect of predestination. So Jansenius distinguishes well here. (3.) He takes this occasion to describe both the gracious disposition and the happy state of those that are his sheep; for such there are, though they be not. [1.] To convince them that they were not his sheep, he tells them what were the characters of his sheep. First, They hear his voice (Joh 10:27), for they know it to be his (Joh 10:4), and he has undertaken that they shall hear it, Joh 10:16. They discern it, It is the voice of my beloved, Sol 2:8. They delight in it, are in their element when they are sitting at his feet to hear his word. They do according to it, and make his word their rule. Christ will not account those his sheep that are deaf to his calls, deaf to his charms, Psa 58:5. Secondly, They follow him; they submit to his guidance by a willing obedience to all his commands, and a cheerful conformity to his spirit and pattern. The word of command has always been, Follow me. We must eye him as our leader and captain, and tread in his steps, and walk as he walked - follow the prescriptions of his word, the intimations of his providence, and the directions of his Spirit - follow the Lamb (the dux gregis - the leader of the flock) whithersoever he goes. In vain do we hear his voice if we do not follow him. [2.] To convince them that it was their great unhappiness and misery not to be of Christ's sheep, he here describes the blessed state and case of those that are, which would likewise serve for the support and comfort of his poor despised followers, and keep them from envying the power and grandeur of those that were not of his sheep. First, Our Lord Jesus takes cognizance of his sheep: They hear my voice, and I know them. He distinguishes them from others (Ti2 2:19), has a particular regard to every individual (Psa 34:6); he knows their wants and desires, knows their souls in adversity, where to find them, and what to do for them. He knows others afar off, but knows them near at hand. Secondly, He has provided a happiness for them, suited to them: I give unto them eternal life, Joh 10:28. 1. The estate settled upon them is rich and valuable; it is life, eternal life. Man has a living soul; therefore the happiness provided is life, suited to his nature. Man has an immortal soul: therefore the happiness provided is eternal life, running parallel with his duration. Life eternal is the felicity and chief good of a soul immortal. 2. The manner of conveyance is free: I give it to them; it is not bargained and sold upon a valuable consideration, but given by the free grace of Jesus Christ. The donor has power to give it. He who is the fountain of life, and Father of eternity, has authorized Christ to give eternal life, Joh 17:2. Not I will give it, but I do give it; it is a present gift. He gives the assurance of it, the pledge and earnest of it, the first-fruits and foretastes of it, that spiritual life which is eternal life begun, heaven in the seed, in the bud, in the embryo. Thirdly, He has undertaken for their security and preservation to this happiness. a. They shall be saved from everlasting perdition. They shall by no means perish for ever; so the words are. As there is an eternal life, so there is an eternal destruction; the soul not annihilated, but ruined; its being continued, but its comfort and happiness irrecoverably lost. All believers are saved from this; whatever cross they may come under, they shall not come into condemnation. A man is never undone till he is in hell, and they shall not go down to that. Shepherds that have large flocks often lose some of the sheep and suffer them to perish; but Christ has engaged that none of his sheep shall perish, not one. b. They cannot be kept from their everlasting happiness; it is in reserve, but he that gives it to them will preserve them to it. (a.) His own power is engaged for them: Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. A mighty contest is here supposed about these sheep. The Shepherd is so careful of their welfare that he has them not only within his fold, and under his eye, but in his hand, interested in his special love and taken under his special protection (all his saints are in thy hand, Deu 33:3); yet their enemies are so daring that they attempt to pluck them out of his hand - his whose own they are, whose care they are; but they cannot, they shall not, do it. Note, Those are safe who are in the hands of the Lord Jesus. The saints are preserved in Christ Jesus: and their salvation is not in their own keeping, but in the keeping of a Mediator. The Pharisees and rulers did all they could to frighten the disciples of Christ from following him, reproving and threatening them, but Christ saith that they shall not prevail. (b.) His Father's power is likewise engaged for their preservation, Joh 10:29. He now appeared in weakness, and, lest his security should therefore be thought insufficient, he brings in his Father as a further security. Observe, [a.] The power of the Father: My Father is greater than all; greater than all the other friends of the church, all the other shepherds, magistrates or ministers, and able to do that for them which they cannot do. Those shepherds slumber and sleep, and it will be easy to pluck the sheep out of their hands; but he keeps his flock day and night. He is greater than all the enemies of the church, all the opposition given to her interests, and able to secure his own against all their insults; he is greater than all the combined force of hell and earth. He is greater in wisdom than the old serpent, though noted for subtlety; greater in strength than the great red dragon, though his name be legion, and his title principalities and powers. The devil and his angels have had many a push, many a pluck for the mastery, but have never yet prevailed, Rev 12:7, Rev 12:8. The Lord on high is mightier. [b.] The interest of the Father in the sheep, for the sake of which this power is engaged for them: "It is my Father that gave them to me, and he is concerned in honour to uphold his gift." They were given to the Son as a trust to be managed by him, and therefore God will still look after them. All the divine power is engaged for the accomplishment of all the divine counsels. [c.] The safety of the saints inferred from these two. If this be so, then none (neither man nor devil) is able to pluck them out of the Father's hand, not able to deprive them of the grace they have, nor to hinder them from the glory that is designed them; not able to put them out of God's protection, nor get them into their own power. Christ had himself experienced the power of his Father upholding and strengthening him, and therefore puts all his followers into his hand too. He that secured the glory of the Redeemer will secure the glory of the redeemed. Further to corroborate the security, that the sheep of Christ may have strong consolation, he asserts the union of these two undertakers: "I and my Father are one, and have jointly and severally undertaken for the protection of the saints and their perfection." This denotes more than the harmony, and consent, and good understanding, that were between the Father and the Son in the work of man's redemption. Every good man is so far one with God as to concur with him; therefore it must be meant of the oneness of the nature of Father and Son, that they are the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. The fathers urged this both against the Sabellians, to prove the distinction and plurality of the persons, that the Father and the Son are two, and against the Arians, to prove the unity of the nature, that these two are one. If we should altogether hold our peace concerning this sense of the words, even the stones which the Jews took up to cast at him would speak it out, for the Jews understood him as hereby making himself God (Joh 10:33) and he did not deny it. He proves that none could pluck them out of his hand because they could not pluck them out of the Father's hand, which had not been a conclusive argument if the Son had not had the same almighty power with the Father, and consequently been one with him in essence and operation. IV. The rage, the outrage, of the Jews against him for this discourse: The Jews took up stones again, Joh 10:31. It is not the word that is used before (Joh 8:59), but ebastasan lithous - they carried stones - great stones, stones that were a load, such as they used in stoning malefactors. They brought them from some place at a distance, as it were preparing things for his execution without any judicial process; as if he were convicted of blasphemy upon the notorious evidence of the fact, which needed no further trial. The absurdity of this insult which the Jews offered to Christ will appear if we consider, 1. That they had imperiously, not to say impudently, challenged him to tell them plainly whether he was the Christ or no; and yet now that he not only said he was the Christ, but proved himself so, they condemned him as a malefactor. If the preachers of the truth propose it modestly, they are branded as cowards; if boldly, as insolent; but Wisdom is justified of her children. 2. That when they had before made a similar attempt it was in vain; he escaped through the midst of them (Joh 8:59); yet they repeat their baffled attempt. Daring sinners will throw stones at heaven, though they return upon their own heads; and will strengthen themselves against the Almighty, though none ever hardened themselves against him and prospered. V. Christ's tender expostulation with them upon occasion of this outrage (Joh 10:32): Jesus answered what they did, for we do not find that they said any thing, unless perhaps they stirred up the crown that they had gathered about him to join with them, crying, Stone him, stone him, as afterwards, Crucify him, crucify him. When he could have answered them with fire from heaven, he mildly replied, Many good works have I shown you from my Father: for which of those works do you stone me? Words so very tender that one would think they should have melted a heart of stone. In dealing with his enemies he still argued from his works (men evidence what they are by what they do), his good works - kala erga excellent, eminent works. Opera eximia vel praeclara; the expression signifies both great works and good works. 1. The divine power of his works convicted them of the most obstinate infidelity. They were works from his Father, so far above the reach and course of nature as to prove him who did them sent of God, and acting by commission from him. These works he showed them; he did them openly before the people, and not in a corner. His works would bear the test, and refer themselves to the testimony of the most inquisitive and impartial spectators. He did not show his works by candle-light, as those that are concerned only for show, but he showed them at noon-day before the world, Joh 18:20. See Psa 111:6. His works so undeniably demonstrated that they were an incontestable demonstration of the validity of his commission. 2. The divine grace of his works convicted them of the most base ingratitude. The works he did among them were not only miracles, but mercies; not only works of wonder to amaze them, but works of love and kindness to do them good, and so make them good, and endear himself to them. He healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, cast out devils, which were favours, not only to the persons concerned, but to the public; these he had repeated, and multiplied: "Now for which of these do you stone me? You cannot say that I have done you any harm, or given you any just provocation; if therefore you will pick a quarrel with me, it must be for some good work, some good turn done you; tell me for which." Note, (1.) The horrid ingratitude that there is in our sins against God and Jesus Christ is a great aggravation of them, and makes them appear exceedingly sinful. See how God argues to this purpose, Deu 32:6, Jer 2:5; Mic 6:3. (2.) We must not think it strange if we meet with those who not only hate us without cause, but are our adversaries for our love, Psa 35:12; Psa 41:9. When he asks, For which of these do you stone me? as he intimates the abundant satisfaction he had in his own innocency, which gives a man courage in a suffering day, so he puts his persecutors upon considering what was the true reason of their enmity, and asking, as all those should do that create trouble to their neighbour, Why persecute we him? As Job advises his friends to do, Job 19:28. VI. Their vindication of the attempt they made upon Christ, and the cause upon which they grounded their prosecution, Joh 10:33. What sin will want fig-leaves with which to cover itself, when even the bloody persecutors of the Son of God could find something to say for themselves? 1. They would not be thought such enemies to their country as to persecute him for a good work: For a good work we stone thee not. For indeed they would scarcely allow any of his works to be so. His curing the impotent man (ch. 5) and the blind man (ch. 9) were so far from being acknowledged good services to the town, and meritorious, that they were put upon the score of his crimes, because done on the sabbath day. But, if he had done any good works, they would not own that they stoned him for them, though these were really the things that did most exasperate them, Joh 11:47. Thus, though most absurd, they could not be brought to own their absurdities. 2. They would be thought such friends to God and his glory as to prosecute him for blasphemy: Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Here is, (1.) A pretended zeal for the law. They seem mightily concerned for the honour of the divine majesty, and to be seized with a religious horror at that which they imagined to be a reproach to it. A blasphemer was to be stoned, Lev 24:16. This law, they thought, did not only justify, but sanctify, what they attempted, as Act 26:9. Note, The vilest practices are often varnished with plausible pretences. As nothing is more courageous than a well-informed conscience, so nothing is more outrageous than a mistaken one. See Isa 66:5; Joh 16:2. (2.) A real enmity to the gospel, on which they could not put a greater affront than by representing Christ as a blasphemer. It is no new thing for the worst of characters to be put upon the best of men, by those that resolve to give them the worst of treatment. [1.] The crime laid to his charge is blasphemy, speaking reproachfully and despitefully of God. God himself is out of the sinner's reach, and not capable of receiving any real injury; and therefore enmity to God spits its venom at his name, and so shows its ill-will. [2.] The proof of the crime: Thou, being a man, makest thyself God. As it is God's glory that he is God, which we rob him of when we make him altogether such a one as ourselves, so it is his glory that besides him there is no other, which we rob him of when we make ourselves, or any creature, altogether like him. Now, First, Thus far they were in the right, that what Christ said of himself amounted to this - that he was God, for he had said that he was one with the Father and that he would give eternal life; and Christ does not deny it, which he would have done if it had been a mistaken inference from his words. But, secondly, They were much mistaken when they looked upon him as a mere man, and that the Godhead he claimed was a usurpation, and of his own making. They thought it absurd and impious that such a one as he, who appeared in the fashion of a poor, mean, despicable man, should profess himself the Messiah, and entitle himself to the honours confessedly due to the Son of God. Note, 1. Those who say that Jesus is a mere man, and only a made God, as the Socinians say, do in effect charge him with blasphemy, but do effectually prove it upon themselves. 2. He who, being a man, a sinful man, makes himself a god as the Pope does, who claims divine powers and prerogatives, is unquestionably a blasphemer, and that antichrist. VII. Christ's reply to their accusation of him (for such their vindication of themselves was), and his making good those claims which they imputed to him as blasphemous (Joh 10:34, etc.), where he proves himself to be no blasphemer, by two arguments: - 1. By an argument taken from God's word. He appeals to what was written in their law, that is, in the Old Testament; whoever opposes Christ, he is sure to have the scripture on his side. It is written (Psa 82:6), I have said, You are gods. It is an argument a minore ad majus - from the less to the greater. If they were gods, much more am I. Observe, (1.) How he explains the text (Joh 10:35): He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken. The word of God's commission came to them, appointing them to their offices, as judges, and therefore they are called gods, Exo 22:28. To some the word of God came immediately, as to Moses; to others in the way of an instituted ordinance. Magistracy is a divine institution; and magistrates are God's delegates, and therefore the scripture calleth them gods; and we are sure that the scripture cannot be broken, or broken in upon, or found fault with. Every word of God is right; the very style and language of scripture are unexceptionable, and not to be corrected, Mat 5:18. (2.) How he applies it. Thus much in general is easily inferred, that those were very rash and unreasonable who condemned Christ as a blasphemer, only for calling himself the Son of God, when yet they themselves called their rulers so, and therein the scripture warranted them. But the argument goes further (Joh 10:36): If magistrates were called Gods, because they were commissioned to administer justice in the nation, say you of him whom the Father hath sanctified, Thou blasphemest? We have here two things concerning the Lord Jesus: - [1.] The honour done him by the Father, which he justly glories in: He sanctified him, and sent him into the world. Magistrates were called the sons of God, though the word of God only came to them, and the spirit of government came upon them by measure, as upon Saul; but our Lord Jesus was himself the Word, and had the Spirit without measure. They were constituted for a particular country, city, or nation; but he was sent into the world, vested with a universal authority, as Lord of all. They were sent to, as persons at a distance; he was sent forth, as having been from eternity with God. The Father sanctified him, that is, designed him and set him apart to the office of Mediator, and qualified and fitted him for that office. Sanctifying him is the same with sealing him, Joh 6:27. Note, Whom the Father sends he sanctifies; whom he designs for holy purposes he prepares with holy principles and dispositions. The holy God will reward, and therefore will employ, none but such as he finds or makes holy. The Father's sanctifying and sending him is here vouched as a sufficient warrant for his calling himself the Son of God; for because he was a holy thing he was called the Son of God, Luk 1:35. See Rom 1:4. [2.] The dishonour done him by the Jews, which he justly complains of - that they impiously said of him, whom the Father had thus dignified, that he was a blasphemer, because he called himself the Son of God: "Say you of him so and so? Dare you say so? Dare you thus set your mouths against the heavens? Have you brow and brass enough to tell the God of truth that he lies, or to condemn him that is most just? Look me in the face, and say it if you can. What! say you of the Son of God that he is a blasphemer?" If devils, whom he came to condemn, had said so of him, it had not been so strange; but that men, whom he came to teach and save, should say so of him, be astonished, O heavens! at this. See what is the language of an obstinate unbelief; it does, in effect, call the holy Jesus a blasphemer. It is hard to say which is more to be wondered at, that men who breathe in God's air should yet speak such things, or that men who have spoken such things should still be suffered to breathe in God's air. The wickedness of man, and the patience of God, as it were, contend which shall be most wonderful. 2. By an argument taken from his own works, Joh 10:37, Joh 10:38. In the former he only answered the charge of blasphemy by an argument ad hominem - turning a man's own argument against himself; but he here makes out his own claims, and proves that he and the Father are one (Joh 10:37, Joh 10:38): If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Though he might justly have abandoned such blasphemous wretches as incurable, yet he vouchsafes to reason with them. Observe, (1.) From what he argues - from his works, which he had often vouched as his credentials, and the proofs of his mission. As he proved himself sent of God by the divinity of his works, so we must prove ourselves allied to Christ by the Christianity of ours. [1.] The argument is very cogent; for the works he did were the works of his Father, which the Father only could do, and which could not be done in the ordinary course of nature, but only by the sovereign over-ruling power of the God of nature. Opera Deo propria - works peculiar to God, and Opera Deo Digna - works worthy of God - the works of a divine power. He that can dispense with the laws of nature, repeal, altar, and overrule them at his pleasure, by his own power, is certainly the sovereign prince who first instituted and enacted those laws. The miracles which the apostles wrought in his name, by his power, and for the confirmation of his doctrine, corroborated this argument, and continued the evidence of it when he was gone. [2.] It is proposed as fairly as can be desired, and put to a short issue. First, If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. He does not demand a blind and implicit faith, nor an assent to his divine mission further than he gave proof of it. He did not wind himself into the affections of the people, nor wheedle them by sly insinuations, nor impose upon their credulity by bold assertions, but with the greatest fairness imaginable quitted all demands of their faith, further than he produced warrants for these demands. Christ is no hard master, who expects to reap in assents where he has not sown in arguments. None shall perish for the disbelief of that which was not proposed to them with sufficient motives of credibility, Infinite Wisdom itself being judge. Secondly, "But if I do the works of my Father, if I work undeniable miracles for the confirmation of a holy doctrine, though you believe not me, though you are so scrupulous as not to take my word, yet believe the works: believe your own eyes, your own reason; the thing speaks itself plainly enough." As the invisible things of the Creator are clearly seen by his works of creation and common providence (Rom 1:20), so the invisible things of the Redeemer were seen by his miracles, and by all his works both of power and mercy; so that those who were not convinced by these works were without excuse. (2.) For what he argues - that you may know and believe, may believe it intelligently, and with an entire satisfaction, that the Father is in me and I in him; which is the same with what he had said (Joh 10:30): I and my Father are one. The Father was so in the Son as that in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead, and it was by a divine power that he wrought his miracles; the Son was so in the Father as that he was perfectly acquainted with the whole of his mind, not by communication, but by consciousness, having lain in his bosom. This we must know; not know and explain (for we cannot by searching find it out to perfection), but know and believe it; acknowledging and adoring the depth, when we cannot find the bottom.”

“And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,.... That is, of the temple; not as built by Solomon, as Nonnus in his paraphrase suggests; or as rebuilt by Zerubabel, for there were no annual feasts appointed in commemoration of either of these; and besides, they were neither of them in the winter time; the dedication of Solomon's temple was in autumn, at the feast of tabernacles, about September, Kg1 8:2; and the dedication of the house in Zorobabel's time, was in the spring, about February, Ezr 6:15; but this was the feast of dedication, appointed by Judas Maccabaeus and his brethren, on account of the purging the temple, and renewing the altar, after the profanation of them by Antiochus; which feast lasted eight days, and began on the twenty fifth of the month Cisleu, which answers to part of our December; see the Apocrypha: "52 Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning, 56 And so they kept the dedication of the altar eight days and offered burnt offerings with gladness, and sacrificed the sacrifice of deliverance and praise. 59 Moreover Judas and his brethren with the whole congregation of Israel ordained, that the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year by the space of eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, with mirth and gladness.'' (1 Maccabees 4) "5 Now upon the same day that the strangers profaned the temple, on the very same day it was cleansed again, even the five and twentieth day of the same month, which is Casleu. 8 They ordained also by a common statute and decree, That every year those days should be kept of the whole nation of the Jews.'' (2 Maccabees 10:8) with which the Jewish writers agree (a): the account Maimonides gives (b) of it is this; "when the Israelites prevailed over their enemies and destroyed them, it was on the twenty fifth of the month Chisleu; and they went into the temple and could not find any pure oil in the sanctuary, but one vial; and it was not enough to light but one day only, and they lighted lamps of it for eight days, until the olives were squeezed, and they brought forth pure oil: wherefore the wise men of that generation ordered, that those eight days beginning at the twenty fifth of Chisleu, should be days of rejoicing and praise, and they lighted lamps at the doors of their houses; every night of these eight nights, to show and make known the miracle; and these days are called "the dedication"; and they are forbidden mourning and fasting, as the days of "purim"; and the lighting of the lamps on them, is a commandment from the Scribes, as is the reading of the book of Esther. How many lamps do they light at the feast of the dedication? the order is, that every house should light one lamp, whether the men of the house be many, or whether there is but one man in it; but he that honours the command, lights up lamps according to the number of the men of the house, a lamp for everyone, whether men or women; and he that honours it more, lights up a lamp for every man the first night, and adds as he goes, every night a lamp; for instance, if there be ten men in the house, the first night he lights up ten lamps, and on the second night twenty, and on the third night thirty; until he comes to the eighth night, when he lights up fourscore lamps.'' Wherefore, as Josephus says (c), this feast was called "lights"; though he seems to assign another reason of its name, because that prosperity and happiness appeared to them beyond hope, and unexpected: and though this was only an order of Judas and his brethren, and the congregation of Israel, yet the Jews observe it as religiously, as if it was the appointment of God himself, and they do not spare to call it so; for in the service of this feast, they have these words (d); "blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who hath sanctified us by his commandments, and hath "commanded" us to light the lamp of the dedication; blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who did wonders for our fathers on those days, at this time; blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who has kept us alive, and preserved us, and brought us to this time; these lamps we light, because of the wonders and marvellous things, and salvations, and wars, thou hast wrought for our fathers on those days at this time, by the hand of thine holy priests.--These lamps are holy, we have no power to use them, but only to behold them, so as to confess and praise thy great name, for thy miracles, and for thy wonders, and for thy salvations.'' And though this feast is said to be at Jerusalem, yet it was not confined there, as were the other feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, for this might be kept in any part of the land: mention is made of the feast of dedication at Lydda (e), and in other countries; Maimonides (f) says "it is a common custom in all our cities in Spain, that all the men of the house light up a lamp the first night, and add as they go along, a lamp every night, till he lights up on the eighth night eight lamps, whether the men of the house be many, or there be but one man.'' Some have been of opinion, that this feast of dedication was on the account of the victory Judith gained over Holophernes, by cutting off his head; or however, that the commemoration of that victory was a part of this festival: in the Vulgate Latin edition of Judith 16:31 it is said, "the day of the festivity of this victory is received by the Hebrews into the number of holy days; and is kept by the Jews from that time, to the present day.'' And Sigonius (g) asserts, that it is celebrated by the Jews on the twenty fifth day of the month Chisleu; which is the same day the feast began, that was instituted by Judas Maccabaeus, on the above account; and certain it is, that the Jews do make mention of that fact of hers, in the service for the first sabbath of this feast (h); and some of their writers would have this fact to be in the times of the Maccabees, though as one of their chronologers (i) observes, it appears from the history of Judith, to have been in the times of Nebuchadnezzar; and there are some that say it was in the times of Cambyses, son of Cyrus, king of Persia, and was two or three hundred years before the miracle of the dedication: but he serves, that the wise men of that age agreed to comprehend the memorial of that wonderful event, with the miracle of the dedication: and so R. Leo Modena (k) says, "they have a tradition, that in ordaining this feast to be kept, they had an eve also upon that famous exploit performed by Judith upon Holophernes; although many are of opinion, that this happened not at this time of the year; and that they make a commemoration of that piece of gallantry of hers now, because she was of the stock of the Maccabees.'' But that cannot be, since she must be some hundreds of years before them; wherefore others make mention of another Judith, a daughter of one of the Maccabees, who performed a like exploit upon Nicanor, a general of Demetrius's army: to which R. Gedaliah has respect, when he says (l), "the wise men agreed to comprehend together in the joy of the feast of dedication, the affair of Judith, seeing there was another Judith, from her that killed Holophernes, a daughter of the Maccabees.'' But it is not clear that there was any such woman, nor that Nicanor was slain by one; and besides, he was killed on the thirteenth of Adar, and that day was ordained to be kept yearly on that account, in the Apocrypha: "43 So the thirteenth day of the month Adar the hosts joined battle: but Nicanor's host was discomfited, and he himself was first slain in the battle. 49 Moreover they ordained to keep yearly this day, being the thirteenth of Adar.'' (1 Maccabees 7) "And they ordained all with a common decree in no case to let that day pass without solemnity, but to celebrate the thirtieth day of the twelfth month, which in the Syrian tongue is called Adar, the day before Mardocheus' day.'' (2 Maccabees 15:36) and the month of Adar answers to part of February. And it was winter; for the month Chisleu answers to our November and December; so that the twenty fifth of that month might be about the tenth of December, and the Jews reckon part of that month winter, and it must be the part in which this feast was; they say (m), "half Chisleu, Tebeth, and half Shebet, are "winter":'' so that the evangelist might with propriety say, according to the sense of the Jewish nation, that it was winter; though it was but just entered, even not more than ten days: the reason why this is observed, may be for what follows. (a) Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 22. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 137. 2. (b) Hilchot Megilla Uchanucha, c. 3. sect. 2, 3. & 4. 1, 2. Vid. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 21. 2. (c) Antiqu. l. 12. c. 7. sect. 7. (d) Seder Tephillot, fol. 234. 1, 2. Ed. Amsterd. (e) T. Bab. Roshhashana, fol. 18. 2. (f) Hilchot Chanuca, c. 4. sect. 3. (g) De Repub. Heb. l. 3. c. 17. (h) Seder Tephillot, fol. 133. 2. (i) Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 22. 1. (k) History of the Rites, &c. of the Jews, c. 9. (l) Shalshelet Hakabala, fol. 17. 2. (m) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 34. fol. 30. 2. T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 106. 2.”

“The feast of the dedication - This was a feast instituted by Judas Maccabeus, in commemoration of his purifying the temple after it had been defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. This feast began on the twenty-fifth of the month Cisleu, (which answers to the eighteenth of our December), and continued for eight days. When Antiochus had heard that the Jews had made great rejoicings, on account of a report that had been spread of his death, he hastened out of Egypt to Jerusalem, took the city by storm, and slew of the inhabitants in three days forty thousand persons; and forty thousand more he sold for slaves to the neighboring nations. Not contented with this, he sacrificed a great sow on the altar of burnt offerings; and, broth being made by his command of some of the flesh, he sprinkled it all over the temple, that he might defile it to the uttermost. See Prideaux's Connection, vol. iii. p. 236, edit. 1725. After this, the whole of the temple service seems to have been suspended for three years, great dilapidations having taken place also in various parts of the buildings: see 1 Maccabees 4:36, etc. As Judas Maccabaeus not only restored the temple service, and cleansed it from pollution, etc., but also repaired the ruins of it, the feast was called τα εγκαινια, the renovation. It was winter - Χειμων ην, or, it was stormy or rainy weather. And this is the reason, probably, why our Lord is represented as walking in Solomon's porch, or portico, Joh 10:23. Though it certainly was in winter when this feast was held, yet it does not appear that the word above refers so much to the time of the year as to the state of the weather. Indeed, there was no occasion to add it was winter, when the feast of the dedication was mentioned, because every body knew that, as that feast was held on the twenty-fifth of the month Cisleu, it was in the winter season. John has here omitted all that Jesus did from the time when he left Jerusalem, after the feast of tabernacles in September was ended, until the feast of the dedication in the December following: and he did it probably because he found that the other evangelists had given an account of what our Lord did in the interval. St. Luke relates what our Lord did on his way from Galilee to Jerusalem, to this feast, Luke 17:11-37; Luk 18:1-14. Observe, likewise, that this time here mentioned was the fourth time (according to John's account) that Jesus went up to the feasts at Jerusalem in about a year: for, first, he went up to the feast of the passover, Joh 2:13; next to the feast of pentecost, as it seems to have been, Joh 5:1; then to the feast of tabernacles, Joh 7:2, Joh 7:10; and, lastly, to the feast of the passover in which he was crucified. John seems purposely to have pointed out his presence in Jerusalem at these four feasts, because all the other evangelists have omitted the mention of every one of them. See Bishop Pearce; and see the note on Joh 5:1.”

“DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION--FROM THE FURY OF HIS ENEMIES JESUS ESCAPES BEYOND JORDAN, WHERE MANY BELIEVE ON HIM. (John 10:22-42) it was . . . the feast of the dedication--celebrated rather more than two months after the feast of tabernacles, during which intermediate period our Lord seems to have remained in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. It was instituted by Jude Maccabeus, to commemorate the purification of the temple from the profanations to which it had been subjected by Antiochus Epiphanes 165 B.C., and kept for eight days, from the twenty-fifth Chisleu (December), the day on which Judas began the first joyous celebration of it (I Maccabees 4:52, 56, 59; and JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 7.7.7). it was winter--implying some inclemency. Therefore,”