KJV: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
YLT: if ye had known me, my Father also ye would have known, and from this time ye have known Him, and have seen Him.'
Darby: If ye had known me, ye would have known also my Father, and henceforth ye know him and have seen him.
ASV: If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also: from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
| ἐγνώκειτέ | you had known |
|
Parse: Verb, Pluperfect Indicative Active, 2nd Person Plural Root: γινώσκω Sense: to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel. |
|
| με | Me |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Accusative 1st Person Singular Root: ἐγώ Sense: I, me, my. |
|
| καὶ | also |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: καί Sense: and, also, even, indeed, but. |
|
| Πατέρα | Father |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: προπάτωρ Sense: generator or male ancestor. |
|
| μου | of Me |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive 1st Person Singular Root: ἐγώ Sense: I, me, my. |
|
| ‹ἂν | - |
|
Parse: Particle Root: ἄν Sense: has no exact English equivalent, see definitions under AV. |
|
| ᾔδειτε› | you would have known |
|
Parse: Verb, Pluperfect Indicative Active, 2nd Person Plural Root: οἶδα Sense: to see. |
|
| ἄρτι | now |
|
Parse: Adverb Root: ἄρτι Sense: just now, this moment. |
|
| γινώσκετε | you know |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 2nd Person Plural Root: γινώσκω Sense: to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel. |
|
| ἑωράκατε | have seen |
|
Parse: Verb, Perfect Indicative Active, 2nd Person Plural Root: εἶδον Sense: to see with the eyes. |
|
Greek Commentary for John 14:7
Past perfect indicative of γινωσκω ginōskō to know by personal experience, in condition of second class as is made plain by the conclusion Probably inchoative present active indicative, “ye are beginning to know the Father from now on.” And have seen him Perfect active indicative of οραω horaō Because they had seen Jesus who is the Son of God, the Image of God, and like God (John 1:18). Hence God is like Jesus Christ. It is a bold and daring claim to deity. The only intelligible conception of God is precisely what Jesus here says. God is like Christ. [source]
Rather, had learned to know, through my successive revelations of myself. [source]
The same verb as above. Some editors, however, read ᾔδειτε , the verb signifying absolute knowledge, the knowledge of intuition and satisfied conviction. If this is adopted, it marks a contrast with the progressive knowledge indicated by ἐγνώκειτε . See on John 2:24. [source]
Not the Father, as John 14:6. It is the knowledge of the Father in His relation to the Son. Through this knowledge the knowledge of God as the Father, “in the deepest verity of His being,” is attained. This latter knowledge is better expressed by οἷδα . See on John 4:21. [source]
See on John 1:18. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for John 14:7
Literally, of the truth. See on John 14:7. [source]
Rev., correctly, from henceforth. Compare John 1:51; John 14:7; Matthew 23:39. [source]
“God no one has ever seen.” Perfect active indicative of οραω horaō Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God αορατος aoratos (Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. The only begotten Son This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after ως μονογενους παρα πατρος hōs monogenous para patros in John 1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read μονογενης τεος monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ο μονογενης υιος ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called τεος theos in John 1:1. The Incarnation is stated in John 1:14, where he is also termed μονογενης monogenēs He was that before the Incarnation. So he is “God only begotten,” “the Eternal Generation of the Son” of Origen‘s phrase. Which is in the bosom of the Father The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like προς τον τεον pros ton theon in John 1:1. In John 3:13 there is some evidence for ο ων εν τωι ουρανωι ho ōn en tōi ouranōi used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. He Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. Hath declared him First aorist (effective) middle indicative of εχηγεομαι exēgeomai old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke‘s Gospel (Luke 24:35) and four times in Acts (Acts 10:8; Acts 15:12, Acts 15:14; Acts 21:19). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is. [source]
“From now on,” as in John 14:7; Matthew 23:39; Revelation 14:13. Before it come to pass Προ Pro with ablative of the articular second aorist middle infinitive γινομαι ginomai (before the coming to pass). When it is come to pass Indefinite relative clause with οταν hotan and the second aorist middle subjunctive of γινομαι ginomai “whenever it does come to pass.” That ye may believe Purpose clause with ινα hina and present active subjunctive of πιστευω pisteuō “that ye may keep on believing.” Cf. Isaiah 48:5. That I am he As Jesus has repeatedly claimed to be the Messiah (John 8:24, John 8:58, etc.). Cf. also John 14:29 (πιστευσητε pisteusēte here); John 16:4. [source]
Imperfect active of ζητεω zēteō graphic picture of increased and untiring effort “to kill him” John repeats this clause “they sought to kill him” in John 7:1, John 7:19, John 7:25; John 8:37, John 8:40. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. Not only brake the Sabbath Imperfect active of λυω luō He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. Λυω Luō means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of λυω luō in this sense like λυειν τα πεντη luein ta penthē (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defense had made the offense worse and had given them a far graver charge. But also called God his own Father “His own” Ισος Isos is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means equal. In Philemon 2:6 Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ ισα τεωι isa theōi “equal to God” (plural ισα isa attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be ισος τεωι isos theōi because in John 14:28 he says: “The Father is greater than I.” And yet he says in John 14:7 that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in John 10:33; John 19:7. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defense of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47). [source]
“The testimony of an unseen and unheard witness would not satisfy them” (Vincent). Bernard understands the Pharisees to see that Jesus claims God the Father as his second witness and so ask “where,” not “who” he is. Augustine has it: Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt, Christ‘s human father, as if the Pharisees were “misled perhaps by the Lord‘s use of αντρωπον anthrōpon (John 8:17)” (Dods). Cyril even took it to be a coarse allusion to the birth of Jesus as a bastard according to the Talmud. Perhaps the Pharisees used the question with double entendre, even with all three ideas dancing in their hostile minds. Ye would know my Father also Conclusion of second-class condition determined as unfulfilled with αν an and second perfect active of οιδα oida used as imperfect in both condition and conclusion. See this same point made to Philip in John 14:9. In John 14:7 Jesus will use γινωσκω ginōskō in the condition and οιδα oida in the conclusion. The ignorance of the Pharisees about Jesus proves it and is due to their ignorance of the Father. See this point more fully stated in John 5:36-38 when Jesus had his previous controversy in Jerusalem. In John 7:28 Jesus said that they knew his home in Nazareth, but he denied then that they knew the Father who sent him. Jesus will again on this occasion (John 8:55) deny their knowledge of the Father. Later he will deny their knowledge of the Father and of the Son (John 16:3). The Pharisees are silenced for the moment. [source]
To know God is to know him as the one, true God as distinguished from false gods; to know his will, his holiness, his hatred of sin, and his saving intent toward mankind. Two words are used of such knowledge, εἰδέναι and γινώσκειν . Both are applied to the heathen and to Christians, and both are used of the Jews' knowledge of God. Ἑιδέναι , of heathen, Galatians 4:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:8. Γινώσκειν of heathen, Romans 1:21; 1 Corinthians 1:21. Ἑιδέναι , of Christ and Christians, John 7:29, John 8:19, John 8:55; John 14:7. Γινώσκειν of Christ and Christians, Galatians 4:9; 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:14; 1 John 4:6, 1 John 4:7, 1 John 4:8; John 10:15; John 17:3. In John, γινώσκειν of Jews who do not know the Father, John 16:3; John 8:55: εἰδέναι , John 7:28; John 8:19; John 15:21. The two are combined, John 1:26; John 7:27; John 8:55; 2 Corinthians 5:16. A distinction is asserted between γινώσκειν as knowledge grounded in personal experience, apprehension of external impressions - and εἰδέμαι purely mental perception in contrast with conjecture or knowledge derived from others. There are doubtless passages which bear out this distinction (see on John 2:24), but it is impossible to carry it rigidly through the N.T. In the two classes, - those who know not God and those who obey not the gospel, - it is not probable that Paul has in mind a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were not ignorant of God, yet they are described by John as not knowing him. The Gentiles are described by Paul as knowing God, but as refusing to glorify him as God (Romans 1:21). Paul rather describes here the subjects of God's judgment as one class, but under different aspects. [source]