KJV: Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
YLT: Come, see a man, who told me all things -- as many as I did; is this the Christ?'
Darby: Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?
ASV: Come, see a man, who told me all things that ever I did: can this be the Christ?
| Δεῦτε | Come |
|
Parse: Verb, Imperative, 2nd Person Plural Root: δεῦτε Sense: come hither, come here, come. |
|
| ἴδετε | see |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Imperative Active, 2nd Person Plural Root: εἶδον Sense: to see with the eyes. |
|
| ἄνθρωπον | a man |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: ἄνθρωπος Sense: a human being, whether male or female. |
|
| εἶπέν | told |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: λέγω Sense: to speak, say. |
|
| μοι | me |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Dative 1st Person Singular Root: ἐγώ Sense: I, me, my. |
|
| πάντα | all things |
|
Parse: Adjective, Accusative Neuter Plural Root: πᾶς Sense: individually. |
|
| ὅσα | whatever |
|
Parse: Personal / Relative Pronoun, Accusative Neuter Plural Root: ὅσος Sense: as great as, as far as, how much, how many, whoever. |
|
| ἐποίησα | I did |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Active, 1st Person Singular Root: ποιέω Sense: to make. |
|
| μήτι | Can it be [that] |
|
Parse: IntPrtcl Root: μήτι Sense: whether, at all, perchance. |
|
| οὗτός | this |
|
Parse: Demonstrative Pronoun, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: οὗτος Sense: this. |
|
| Χριστός | Christ |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: Χριστός Sense: Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God. |
|
Greek Commentary for John 4:29
Ha, not οσα hosa (as many as), no “ever” in the Greek. But a guilty conscience (John 4:18.) led her to exaggerate a bit. Can this be the Christ? She is already convinced herself (John 4:26.), but she puts the question in a hesitant form to avoid arousing opposition. With a woman‘s intuition she avoided ουκ ouk and uses μητι mēti She does not take sides, but piques their curiosity. [source]
Jesus' insight in the one case convinced her that He knew everything, and to her awakened conscience it seemed as though He had told everything. [source]
Rather, as Rev., can this be. The particle suggests a negative answer. Surely this cannot be, yet with some hope. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for John 4:29
Mark does not give “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16) or “of God” (Luke 9:20). The full confession is the form in Matthew. Luke‘s language means practically the same, while Mark‘s is the briefest. But the form in Mark really means the full idea. Mark omits all praise of Peter, probably because Peter had done so in his story of the incident. For criticism of the view that Matthew‘s narrative is due to ecclesiastical development and effort to justify ecclesiastical prerogatives, see discussion on Matthew 16:16, Matthew 16:18. The disciples had confessed him as Messiah before. Thus John 1:41; John 4:29; John 6:69; Matthew 14:33. But Jesus had ceased to use the word Messiah to avoid political complications and a revolutionary movement (John 6:14.). But did the disciples still believe in Jesus as Messiah after all the defections and oppositions seen by them? It was a serious test to which Jesus now put them. [source]
Proud and fine scorn on Pilate‘s part at the idea that he had a personal interest in the question. Vehement negation implied. Cf. John 4:29 for μητι mēti in a question. The gulf between Jew and Gentile yawns wide here. Nation For παρεδωκαν paredōkan see John 18:30. What hast thou done? First aorist active indicative of ποιεω poieō Blunt and curt question. “What didst thou do?” “What is thy real crime?” John‘s picture of this private interview between Pilate and Jesus is told with graphic power. [source]
Diminutive of παις pais and used here alone by Jesus in addressing his disciples. It is a colloquial expression like “my boys.” The aged Apostle John uses it in 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:18. Have ye aught to eat? The negative answer is expected by this polite inquiry as in John 4:29. The rare and late word προσπαγιον prosphagion from the root παγ phag (εστιω esthiō to eat) and προς pros (in addition) was used for a relish with bread and then for fish as here. So in the papyri. Nowhere else in the N.T. [source]
So still. I perceive “I am beginning to perceive” from what you say, your knowledge of my private life (John 4:29). See John 2:23 for τεωρεω theōreō which John‘s Gospel has 23 times, of bodily sight (John 20:6, John 20:14), of mental contemplation (John 12:45; John 14:17). See both τεωρεω theōreō and οπτομαι optomai in John 1:51; John 16:16. That thou art a prophet “That a prophet art thou” (emphasis on “thou”). She felt that this was the explanation of his knowledge of her life and she wanted to change the subject at once to the outstanding theological dispute. [source]
The Pharisees took the lead in this scornful sneer at the officers. The use of μη mē formally expects a negative answer as in John 4:29, but the Pharisees really believed it. See also John 6:67. The verb form is perfect passive indicative of πλαναω planaō for which see John 7:12 with perhaps an allusion to that phase of opinion. [source]
Better, received or taken up in glory. Ἁναλαμβάνειν is the formal term to describe the ascension of Christ (see Acts 1:2, Acts 1:22), and the reference is most probably to that event. Comp. lxx, 2 Kings 2:11, of Elijah, and Matthew href="/desk/?q=mt+16:27&sr=1">Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:31; Luke 12:27; 1 Corinthians 15:43; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 2 Corinthians 3:8, 2 Corinthians 3:11.Additional Note on 1 Timothy 3:16Christ's existence before his incarnation was purely spiritual ( ἐν πνεύματι ). He was in the form of God (Philemon 2:6): He was the effulgence of God's glory and the express image of his substance (Hebrews 1:3), and God is spirit (John 4:24). From this condition he came into manifestation in the flesh ( ἐν σαρκί ). He became man and entered into human conditions (Philemon 2:7, Philemon 2:8). Under these human conditions the attributes of his essential spiritual personality were veiled. He did not appear to men what he really was. He was not recognised by them as he who “was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1, John 1:2); as “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15); as one with God (John 10:30; John 14:9); as he who had all power in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18); who was “before all things and by whom all things consist” (Colossians 1:17); who was “the king of the ages” (1 Timothy 1:17). On the contrary, he was regarded as an impostor, a usurper, and a blasphemer. He was hated, persecuted, and finally murdered. He was poor, tempted, and tried, a man of sorrows. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The justification or vindication of what he really was did not therefore come out of the fleshly sphere. He was not justified in the flesh. It came out of the sphere of his spiritual being. Glimpses of this pneumatic life ( ἐν πνεύματι ) flashed out during his life in the flesh. By his exalted and spotless character, by his works of love and power, by his words of authority, in his baptism and transfiguration, he was vindicated as being what he essentially was and what he openly claimed to be. These justifications were revelations, expressions, and witnesses of his original, essential spiritual and divine quality; of the native glory which he had with the Father before the world was. It was the Spirit that publicly indorsed him (John 1:32, John 1:33): the words which he spake were spirit and life (John 6:63): he cast out demons in the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28): his whole earthly manifestation was in demonstration of the Spirit. These various demonstrations decisively justified his claims in the eyes of many. His disciples confessed him as the Christ of God (Luke 9:20) some of the people said “this is the Christ” (John 7:41): others suspected that he was such (John 4:29). Whether or not men acknowledged his claims, they felt the power of his unique personality. They were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority (Matthew 7:28, Matthew 7:29). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Then followed the more decisive vindication in his resurrection from the dead. Here the work of the Spirit is distinctly recognised by Paul, Romans 1:4. See also Romans 8:11. In the period between his resurrection and ascension his pneumatic life came into clearer manifestation, and added to the vindication furnished in his life and resurrection. He seemed to live on the border-line between the natural and the spiritual world, and the powers of the spiritual world were continually crossing the line and revealing themselves in him. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In the apostolic preaching, the appeal to the vindication of Christ by the Spirit is clear and unequivocal. The spiritual nourishment of believers is “the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philemon 1:19): the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6): Paul identifies Christ personally with the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17); and in Romans 8:9, Romans 8:10, “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are used as convertible terms. The indwelling of the Spirit of Christ is the test and vindication of belonging to Christ (Romans 8:9). Thus, though put to death in the flesh, in the Spirit Christ is vindicated as the Son of God, the Christ of God, the manifestation of God. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- [source]