The Supreme Importance Of The Doctrine Of Election And The Eternal Security Of The Elect As Taught In The Gospel Of John

By Stephen M. Reynolds

Crozer Theological Seminary

The original reading of John 10:29 according to the best textual critics had the relative pronoun and the comparative adjective in the neuter singular, ὅ and μεῖζον. The meaning is, “What my Father has given me is greater than all”. The Vulgate agrees, having quod and maius, but the Greek Textus Receptus has ὅς and μείζων, with the meaning, “My Father who has given (them) to me is greater than all”.

The sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant translators, Tyndale (1535), The Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops’ Bible (1568), and King James Bible (1611), followed the Textus Receptus. Wycliffe followed the Vulgate which in this case appears to be right. Calvin’s Commentary shows that he was using the Textus Receptus.

After the results of modern textual criticism began to be known, with Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, deciding for ὅ and μεῖζον, one would have supposed translators would take this reading very seriously. Richard Francis Weymouth (1903) did so, but translated μεῖζον as “more precious”, reading, “What my Father has given me is more precious than all besides”. In a footnote he added: “More precious] Or, ‘more (to me).’ Lit. ‘greater (in my esteem).’” There is no apparent reason for the idea expressed in this footnote.

Edgar J. Goodspeed in The New American Translation (1923) also followed this reading, translating, “What my Father has intrusted to me is of more importance than everything else”.

The New Testament in Basic English likewise follows this reading, having, “That which my Father has given me has more value than all”. There is a strong tendency, however, among other translators, to ignore this reading or to give it marginal notation only. For example, the Revised Standard Version, (1946) and the New English Bible (1961) follow the Textus Receptus and give only footnotes to the reading preferred by Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Nestles.

James Moffatt (1922), Charles B. 4Villiams (1937), the Berkeley Version published under the editorship of Gerrit Verkuyl (1945), and J. B. Phillips (1952) ignore. the reading with ὅ and μεῖζον entirely.

If we seek the question why this reading is rejected by Protestant translators, the treatment given it by commentators may give a clue as to the answer. It appears that the passage is greatly misunderstood.

The Roman Catholic Confraternity Edition (1949), having been made by scholars who revere the Vulgate, naturally has, “What… is greater than all”, and in a note says, “this gift may have been Christ’s power, the work of redemption, or the flock itself. Generally, however, it is understood to be Christ’s divine nature. It is taken in this sense by the Lateran Council.” The only one of these suggested meanings suiting the context is “the work of redemption”, but the meaning in this context is not redemption from the point of view of human free will but strictly as a result of divine predestination. As will be shown, Protestant commentators for the most part miss this meaning.

Marcus Dods in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (1894) says of ὅ and μεῖζον: “This reading seems exegetically impossible …. It gives a sense irrelevant to the passage.”

Charles Fox Burney in The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922) agrees with the textual critics named above that this is the reading of the best Greek manuscripts, but does not accept it as original. He is so far from believing it to be a relevant thought that he postulates an Aramaic original which, inasmuch as it is ambiguous, he thinks was wrongly translated into Greek.

G. H. C. MacGregor in Mofatt’s New Testament Commentary (1928) says, “‘My Father who gave them is stronger than all, and no one can snatch anything out of the Father’s hand.’ An alternative reading gives a neuter pronoun which some prefer on the ground of John’s usage in 6:39 … translating, ‘that which my Father hath given me is stronger than everything’ (cf. I Jn. 5:4). But this thought is out of place when the figure of sheep is being used; and the last clause of the verse suits better the first reading”.

R. C. H. Lenski in The Interpretation of Saint John’s Gospel (1942) says, “The variant readings turn on two points, whether we should read ὅ for ὅς and μεῖζον for μείζων: ‘That which my Father has given to me is greater than everything (now also neuter); and no one is able to snatch it,’ etc., (R. V. margin). This and any similar reading has little textual support, which fact already settles the case. In addition, it introduces a thought that is wholly untenable. For this reading which draw ὁ πατήρ μου, placed in front of the relative clause, into that clause, throws a peculiar emphasis on ‘my Father’: ‘What my Father has given me,’ etc., and this injects the implication into the clause that besides what his Father has given him Jesus has something that is not so acquired. This is not true; all that Jesus has comes from his Father. In addition, this reading produces the strange thought that the sheep are greater than everything else and on this account are held firmly by the Father’s hand. In what respect are they ‘greater?’ one is moved to ask. In v. 28 it is the power and greatness of Jesus that protect the sheep; and so again in v. 29 it is the greatness and the lower of the Father, exceeding that of any possible foe, that safeguard the sheep.”

Lenski is certainly wrong in saying the reading lie rejects has little textual support. The peculiar emphasis on my Father does not necessarily imply that besides what the Father has given him Jesus has something else not so acquired. It may be emphasized so that even the dullest of apprehension would not miss the point that this is from the Father.

The reference is not to the sheep, at least not directly. Verse 27 refers to τὰ πρὸβατα (neuter plural) and the personal pronoun aura is also used in that verse. The corresponding relative is not ὅ but ἅ, and the word greater would be expressed by μείζονα not μεῖζον if the reference continued to be to the sheep. The meaning is the great charge which the Father has given Jesus. A reference to Christ’s nature as the Lateran Council interprets it is not relevant to this context. This charge in the divine plan is greater than anything else. It involves the Salvation of the elect who were chosen before the foundation of the world. These of course are the “sheep” mentioned in verse 27 and 28, but the meaning is not that the sheep are greater than all other things but that the charge or commission is greater.

Willbert F. Howard in The Interpreter’s Bible (1952) says, “The marginal reading (of the Revised Standard Version) has the stronger support, but the reading followed in the text yields a meaning which better fits the context”.

C. K. Barrett in The Gospel According to Saint John (t955) writes, “The attestation of the neuters, though small numerically, is very strong; nevertheless, the masculines are far more suitable to the context”.

Rudolf Bultmann in Das Evangelium des Johannes (1956) says, “Sinn hat nur ὅς … μείζων: ‘der Vater, der sie mir gegeben hat, ist grÖsser als Alles’.”

Henry Alford in his Greek Testament (1868) interprets the passage correctly, Saying that it is climactic, but he does not buttress his conclusion with arguments as the author of this paper attempts to do, and his opinion appears to have been much neglected by later Scholars. He says, “The form of the sentence is a climax; rising through the ἐγὼ δίδωμι and ἐκ τ. χ. μου, to ὁ πατήρ μου ὅ δέδωκέν μοι and ἐκ τ. κ. τοῦ πατρός.”

This reading is far more cogent than that of the Textus Receptus. To say with it and the majority of our translators and commentators that the Father is greater than all would certainly be an unnecessary remark. The Pharisees knew that Jesus meant God when he spoke of his Father and they did not deny the supreme greatness of God. To say, on the other hand, “The thing (charge) which my Father has given me is greater than all other things”, is a thought foreign to the Pharisees’ point of view and therefore more probable.

Verse 28 brings out the thought that no one can snatch Christ’s sheep out of his hand, and verse 29 the thought that the charge to carry out the eternal decree of the salvation of the elect is the greatest of all things in creation. To snatch it from Christ would be to snatch it from the Father since it is the Father’s eternal decree that Christ fulfill it.

Understood in this way the sense is not irrelevant to the passage as Dods says it is. It is not, as Lenski says, a thought that is wholly untenable. It does not even yield an inferior meaning as Wilbert F. Howard says. It yields a relevant, cogent and superior meaning. It is all very consistent and should give great comfort to Calvinists and all others who cherish the doctrine of the eternal security of God’s elect as the greatest thing in all creation.