“he Came Unto His Own”: What Can We See In Greek That We Can’t See In English? (gospel Of John 1.10-12)

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

This passage is probably one of the most important passages for discovering the true meaning of the Gospel of John. Why is this passage so important?  First of all, this passage is part of the book’s prologue. It is in the prologue where the trajectory for all the material that follows is determined.  In other words, the way the interpreter understands the prologue will affect how he reads the rest of what John had to say.

Generally speaking, both Christian and most Jewish scholars after them read this passage as if the unit of thought begins at vs.11 and continues until vs. 13. (We need to keep in mind that when the Gospel was first authored, there were no breaks between chapters and verses.) However, vs. 11 continues to develop the idea that begins in vs.10. This is significant because without verse 10, verse 11 is can be easily misread.

Vs. 11 traditionally is interpreted as follows. “He came unto his own (meaning the Jews), but his own (meaning the Jews) did not accept him.” In this traditional interpretation vs. 12 continues to juxtapose Jewish national unbelief with the faith of universalized/international Christians. However, there are two problems with this interpretation that at least should temper our conclusions until we know more:

1)      First it is grammatically problematic. Literally the translation of the first “own” in vs. 11 from the Greek should be rendered as “He came to his own things.” The Greek word is in fact in neuter plural, and therefore cannot in anyway refer to the Jewish people or any people for that matter.  It most probably refers to “the world” in vs. 10 that proceeds vs.11 (… the world was made through him, yet the world did not receive him.) The second “own” in vs. 11 can in fact refer to the Jewish people, but does not have to, since it can simply refer to humanity rejecting God’s Kingship. The traditional interpretation argues against the logical and simple flow of text (line of thought) in John’s narrative.  If one is careful to distinguish the genders used by the author, the first “own” is neuter and the second “own” is masculine, then the traditional interpretation may be not as certain as previously thought.

2)      This interpretation is also problematic historically, because it’s reading in a later history back into a previous history. Before I lose you, please, let me explain. You see whether someone thinks that John was authored extremely early (around 40 C.E.) or fairly late (around 90 C.E.) during all of the first century Jewish followers of Jesus were still very much present in large numbers. Many of the original Jewish leaders of the early Jesus movement and their (Jewish) disciples played an active role in the life of the Early Church.

At this point, I’m not setting forth any conclusive theories; but simply raising problems with the usual assumed reading of this text. If the traditional interpretation of Jn. 1.10-13 is indeed the correct interpretation, then the basic assumption about this Gospel is unavoidable – it is in fact an early Christian anti-Jewish document, regardless of its very rich Christian spiritual message. However, I am suggesting that there is at least one alternative way to read the Gospel of John.  But more about this in later sections of this commentary.

To receive more information about learning Biblical Languages with Hebrew University of Jerusalem/eTeacher Biblical program online at affordable cost, please, click here.

© By Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Ph.D.

To sign up for weekly posts by Dr. Eli, please, click here. It is recommend by Dr. Eli that you read everything from the begining in his study of John. You can do so by clicking here “Samaritan-Jewish Commentary”.


About the author

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-EyzenbergTo secure your spot in our new course “The Jewish Background of New Testament” - CLICK HERE NOW

You might also be interested in:

Join the conversation (51 comments)

Leave a Reply

  1. The Prophet Jeremiah and Jesus Christ

    […] Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Eli. “” He came to his own “: What can we see in Greek that we can not see in English?” Israel Institute of Biblical Studies. Accessed April 4, 2019. https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/john-1-10-12/ […]

  2. Ray Luff

    I believe that the Christ’s ownership includes the world (goyim, ethnos) and the Jew. I think it is good to contemplate on that and that. It is not only the Jew that rejected Christ. Clearly the gentile-nations rejected Him as well as the Jewish leadership. BUT the verse goes on to say some became Children of God by believing in His name. This reference to Children of God is prophetic. Something that so far had not happened.

    6  I have said, Ye are gods;
    And all of you are children of the most High.
    7  But ye shall die like men,
    And fall like one of the princes.
    8  Arise, O God, judge the earth:
    For thou shalt inherit all nations.

    The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), cxix.

    That passage opens up a whole different topic. But I think the invitation to be a child of God is very significant. The singular name for God in the Old Testament is “EL” but plural name for God “Eloheim” which is used more often I believe includes an entourage of His children and His angels and of course His only begotten son. Paul said there are a cloud of witnesses. It might be a better translation to change the small g “gods” in that passage to demigods. Certainly nothing equal to God (the Mormons go the wrong direction with this.)

  3. Stan Gain

    I am not a theologian but I love the written Word with all my heart and would defend it with my life. I also love the Jewish people in the same way.

    In Colossians 1:16 it says that all things were created through Him and FOR Him. With this understanding that all things are created FOR Him, then it is surely not unreasonable to take a small step in understanding ‘His own’ as the world. John’s writing would surely back this up when in 3:16 he writes that God so loved ‘the world’. Surely ‘the world’ would include the Jews as part of a world that is His own! To exclude the non-Jewish people would render John3:16 as ‘God so loved the Jews!’

    Am I being too simplistic?

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Stan, hi. Welcome to our forum. Very much appreciate your comment/question. First allow me to disagree that you are not a theologian :-), I think you are and a very good one at that. Actually, all people including those who do not believe are in one way or another theologians. Some are bad, some are good, some are somewhere in the middle.

      OK… after this short chit chat… John. It is obvious that there is some kind of difficulty here. Because sometimes we do see John use the world not like others (AND NOT LIKE we always thought). I would suggest that you are using two methods I (purposely) do not. One is that you are assuming (as is normal) that Paul uses Greek words the same way John does (and vice versa) and two, you are interpreting an ancient text in already pre-cooked way. In other words you already know what world means in John 3:16 (so do most people I think :-)), and then you project it to the rest.

      Now… I will be honest with you… I am myself not very comfortable with the questions I am raising. Theologically I have no known heresies (at least not to my knowledge and I do hold MDiv in protestant theology) :-), but I am trying to think/read through John AS IF THERE were no Colassians and as if there were no other Gospels. In other-words I am trying to read John as John, seeing where it will lead. If you read my Jewish-Samaritan Journey (banner to the right) from the beginning I think you will be astounded to see the kind of things we’ve been learning because of that method. (None are heretical (this one is by far more radical thing I said), but many are surely non-traditional). I therefore invite you to first catch up and then continue to think with us. I think we can use another great mind! Yours, Dr. Eli

  4. Rafael

    In order to read this as coming to his own people and being rejected by them, you have to jump ahead and read the end before the beginning. But if you’re going to do that, you cannot jump to the Jewish people, per se.

    Historically, Yeshua has been much more violently and more frequently rejected by the non Jew, such as Russia, Germany, South Korea, China, etc. Every nation has persecuted, or is beginning to persecute Christians. Even my own country is now openly stripping all christianity from all public venues. It is doing so illegally under the pretense of law. The persecution here has only just begun.

    Historically, there has always been more messianic Jews per capita than Christians of any other nation. As a result, it is easy to argue that the Jews have always been more accepting of Yeshua than any other group of people in history.

    This then leads me to believe that this passage cannot be targeting the Jews. It seems to me that it is targeting all of humanity. When asked if it was legal to pay taxes to a foreign government, Yeshua put the focus on the image of the coin and used that to transition to the image of God. His audience knew that the only things with the image of God were humans, not just Jews.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes, but you are missing my whole point. Please, read the commentary from the beginning. Hoi Ioudaioi are not “the Jews”. http://iibsblogs.wpengine.com/gospel-of-john/

      1. Rafael

        Then I am perplexed. I got here to this page because I did go back and start at the beginning. And yet, I am at a loss to know what “point” I’m missing.

        Besides, I think you may have missed MY point. I made no connection that I’m aware of to the hoi loudaioi. I spoke of the “his own” of the scripture referenced at the tip of this article, if I’m not mistaken. Are you suggesting that the hoi loudaioi was “his own”?

        1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

          Yes :-). How exactly I am still working on. But there is diffidently a sense that that is true.

  5. Thorleif Ragnarsson

    Isaiah prophesied much about the coming Messiah from the Holy Spirit. Isaiah 9:6-7 ” A child is born to us! A son is given to us! And He will be our ruler. He will be called, ” Wonderful Counselor,” ” Mighty God,” “Eternal Father,” ” Prince of Peace.” His royal power will continue to grow; his kingdom will always be at peace.” Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Son of God. ” He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” The Holy Spirit spoke these things through the prophet Isaiah. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Word made flesh, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, The Prince of Peace. As He spoke to the great Rabbi Nicodemus, ” For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For god did not send His Son into the world to be its judge, but to be its Savior.” John 3:16-17. ” I am telling you the truth” Jesus replied, ” Before Abraham was born, ‘I AM’.” then they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and left the Temple.” John 8:58-59. ” When you raise up the Son of Man, you will know that I Am Who I Am; then you will know I do nothing on my own authority, but I say only what the Father has instructed Me to say.” John 8:28. John 10:30- ” The Father and I are one.” Then The people again picked up stones to throw at Him. Jesus said to them, ” I have done many good deeds in your presence which the Father gave Me to do; for which one of these do you want to stone Me?” They answered, “We do not want to stone you for any good deeds, but because of your blasphamy! You are only a man, but you are trying to make yourself God!” John 10: 30-33. And of course this one ” Phillip said to Him, ” Lord, show us the Father, that is all we need.” Jesus answered, ” for a long time I have been with you all; yet you do not know Me Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father. Why, then, do you say, ‘ Show us the Father’? Do you not believe Philip that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I have spoken to you,” Jesus said to His diciples,” do not come from Me. The Father, who remains in Me, does His own work.” John 14:8-10. So we see who Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Messiah really is. Mighty God, Eternal Father.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Thorleif, thanks for your comment and welcome to the group! Dr. Elia

  6. […] It is in this light that we should understand the earlier words of John in connection with the hoi Ioudaioi that “his own people did not receive him” in John 1.11 (Read “He came unto His own”). […]

  7. […] Gospel was also reinterpreted to be an anti-Jewish document instead of an inner Jewish one (Read “He came unto His own”). The character of Judas Iscariot was also misread in an effort to fit the textual facts into this […]

  8. Alyson

    When I read these verses, I always thought that the world as a whole – all people – could be included in the rejection of Jesus, not just Jews. As part of mankind, Romans had also been part of God’s creation and had participated in the crucifixion.
    God’s Creation had rebelled. While the Jews held a special place in God’s Heart, because they were to be God’s People, representing Him to the rest of mankind, gentiles were also part of God’s Creation and had disappointed God time and again.
    When I read the New Testament, I’ve always felt that the apostles still saw themselves as Jews – Jews who had witnessed the Messiah. They don’t seem to feel they are a separate religion (like we have today), but the next era of Judaism (just like there was as an era of Judges and an era of Kings, now there was an era of the Messiah).
    I’m still relatively new to Bible study and, while an avid student, I’m well aware that I have much to learn. Your blog always challenges me to return to scripture and see how God is speaking to me through His Word. However, if you have insights that my limited understanding could not have reached, I would be so appreciative if you’d share them with me!

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Alyson, hi. Try this – http://iibsblogs.wpengine.com/2013/02/john-4-43-54-was-galilee-jesus-real-home/

      I think what you are saying is good and acceptable, but I don’t think it is accurate. I think what is going on in John is more complex. (I don’t fully grasp it myself) 🙂

      Dr. Eli

  9. Laurel

    Hello Dr. Eli,

    I’m afraid this question comes from a very uninformed perspective when it comes to understanding Greek or Hebrew translation into English, but the Gospel of John has always been my favorite because of its mystical nature so I feel compelled to ask this anyway.

    Your clarification of this passage is very interesting to me, because it supports what my own understanding of this has been. Jesus also says (John 10:30) “I and the Father are One.” In the Vincent’s Word Studies section of biblecommenter.com, it is noted: “One…the neuter, not the masculine…one person. It implies unity of essence.” And another comment at biblehub.com: “Most of the Christian fathers understood (these words)…as referring to the oneness or unity of nature between the Father and the Son.”

    Jesus also says of those who receive his message (John 17:22-23) “And the glory which You have given me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one.” And biblehub.com notes: “The last clause shows the meaning of the first. It is not the future glory of the heavenly state, but *the secret of that present unity* just before spoken of; the glory, therefore, of the indwelling Spirit of Christ.”

    I have begun to study the Tree of Life, and my understanding is that the Divine Essence of the Creative powers of the Supernal Triangle is also the Essence of the entire manifest world below the Abyss, which would include all human consciousness, even though an individual consciousness may not be aware of its indwelling Divine Essence. Jesus Christ was aware of his Divine nature, while the people he taught were not aware of the presence of the Divine Essence within their being.

    In Christian mystical terms, the Father would be the unmanifest Divine aspect, and the Son would be the manifest Divine aspect, which is of one Essence with the Father, but expressed in a different state. In John 10:36, when Jesus says: “Do you say of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, you blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?”, Vincent’s Word Studies notes that in the Greek there is no article “the” before “Son of God”. The author says of this: “Its absence directs us to the character rather than to the person of Jesus.” So from this perspective, Jesus Christ, representing the self-aware consciousness of the manifest Divinity or ‘Son’, “was in the world, and the world was made through him (through the ‘Son’), yet the world did not know him.”

    So my question is, could the Greek that has been translated as “He came to his own” be a reference to the fact that everything Jesus Christ would have encountered during his incarnation — including, but not limited to, all of the people — would represent the manifest world, the ‘Son’ (which, since it is not an unmanifest Unity but a manifest diversity, might be conceived of as neuter plural?), and that this manifest world was of common Essence with his self-aware Divine nature (as the ‘Son’), but the human consciousness of that manifest world, represented by the people he encountered, did not recognize this Essence within him just as they didn’t recognize it within themselves?

    Those who did recognize Jesus’ Divine nature and internalize his teaching, would then also become aware of their own participation in that inner Divine Essence which is “born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” So I’m wondering, would this interpretation fit with the Greek word choice? (I’m thinking also of the parallel in Zen Buddhism that characterizes the nature of the phenomenal world as “the ten thousand things”.)

    This is a very interesting subject. I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the blog on John’s Gospel.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Shalom, Laurel. This is a little bit embarrassing, because by replying in this way I may come across as not intellectual enough :-), but truthfully you lost me somewhere along the way (though I think I followed 85% of your logic). I am not 100% sure what you asking, so I am hesitant to provide an answer to the question I don’t fully understand. I suggest that you you ask your question again and keep it to only two paragraphs. Thank you in advance.

    2. Lois Eaton

      John 17:22-23 has been interpreted in so many ways. Maybe it is a lot simpler than we are accustomed to thinking. When Yeshua said ‘That they may be one’ did He really mean that we are to be one physical essence? Or did he simply mean that we are to have one mind, one goal, one purpose, all in perfect communication with the Father? If so, then he surely meant the same when he said ‘Even as we are one”. These verses do not support the trinity concept at all. They Do support the idea that Father and son, 2 separate entities, are in perfect communion with one another.

    3. Aaron

      Luke 18:32-33 , Luke 21:24. The orthodox Jewish people didn’t chant his death at the hands of his enemies – the Hellenized Jews and Greek residents were the ones who were chanting when he was handed over to the Romans. And that only happened because the crowd was deceptively stirred up by Pharisees with false reports extracted from the secret trial that took place the night before. The mixed Hellenists (a worldly bunch) were deceived into sentencing him to death. The Romans did the deed. The Jews ALMOST recognized him as who he was and would have made Him into their Messiah, which is exactly when the curtain came to a close. This was a ripe time for Him to be revealed. The faithful Jews of the land were ready to team up with Him and take the world by storm. But why have a mere human Messiah when you can have a resurrected one that conquers every realm? He knew that. That’s the reason He kept his true identity a secret and didn’t solicit who he really was. He would immediately have every faithful Jew’s loyalty if he did that. That’s also why He lost large numbers when he admitted that his death at the hands of Roman executioners was eminent. It broke their hopes, hopes that were genuinely good, but lacked some foresight. The problem was that He had a bigger enemy to defeat that they couldn’t see coming – an enemy who’s so sly that he evades the focus of every generation. The Adversary, a ancient and cunning disembodied creature. He would be more than willing to see them all conquer the world only to sit in accusation of each and every one of them before the Father – one by one, as each person went into the afterlife, only to be eternally dead and separated from the who loved them. Everything would succeed only to fail. If a rebellion was lead at that time, The Father would not have their eternity secured, with their sins completely atoned for. He would gain so many only to lose them in the end. They would never be resurrected to a new life if someone did not take on their rightful death first and satisfy all the legitimate accusations that would have been made against them concerning the Law, taking on all the legal repercussions, according to Moses. This was the Adversary’s Ace card in the hole and the Father knew it. This Messiah knew that he had to take care of this business first so that he could one day return and take the whole UNIVERSE by storm, all of Israel, together. Now the Adversary, the enemy of the Father and His kind, will fail – and the Holy people will finally be able to rest in His arms and never worry about being separated from Him again by any accusative adversary. This is the Legacy of the King – a Jew of Jews, a Rabbi of Rabbis. The Lover of Israel. May He forever bless His people Israel, and may they forever bless His Name.

      1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

        Aron, thanks for your feedback and welcome to the group. I think you will have a lot to contribute to our discussions. Let’s keep thinking together. What do you say? Dr. Eli

  10. Jeff Estes

    Interesting discussion; when I’ve read this section, I have wondered whether “to his own” would be similar to what is said in English jargon when a person “comes into their own”, that is, to become fully mature in their abilities or nature. In any case, “his own people”, whether Jewish or all people in general, was what I assumed was originally implied.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes. But I think when you read through my commentary especially if you did so from the begining I think you can see other important (perhaps even more important aspects).

      General commentary – http://iibsblogs.wpengine.com/

      Read especially – http://iibsblogs.wpengine.com/2013/02/john-4-43-54-was-galilee-jesus-real-home/

  11. David Gibbons

    Dr. Eli, I don’t know what translation you are using when you quote the passage at the top, but the ESV (English Standard Version) follows your translation suggestion, at least in the notes.

    It is interesting indeed to ponder who “His own people” were who rejected him. It is unlikely to be the Judean Authorities, but may well be the Judeans, though by that does it mean the people of Judea, or those who followed the temple cult wherever they lived?

    What it cannot seem to mean is the Galileans, who the synoptics would have us think of as first and foremost his people, and I agree, it seems unlikely to refer to the whole of the the Judean people (That is, what is commonly now called Jews).

    That really doesn’t leave much, unless by his people all of us are meant, and that may make some sense in light of the world references. That way it would read “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to the world that was his, and the people, who were also His, did not receive him (en masse). But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God”

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      I am using ESV, and best I remember it catches the issue and seeks to reflect it. I think in John his people are the Judeans mostly though it is of course complex. This Gospel (I think) is a Judean Jesus-movement self-critic that is meant to influence Israelite Samaritans among others to come to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. That is the paradox Jesus says salvation is from hoi Ioudaioi and this Gospel says that he was buried according to the costumes of Hoi Ioudaioi. I think your last rendering comes close to what I am saying. Let’s keep thinking together. Great to have you contributing to our discussions. Helps a lot.

  12. Lois Eaton

    To me it doesn’t matter whether ‘his own’refers just to the Jews or to all of us – if it does refer to the Jews I do not see it as a rejection in any way, but a cry of grieving love.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Lois, would please unpack that?

      1. Lois Eaton

        Could it be a cry of pain because He sent His son to the people He called ‘The apple of His eye’and yet so many did not even recognise him for who he was? If so, that does not in anyway imply rejection.

        1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

          Yes. BUT the 1000000 question is who are meant here buy his own (people). Judeans? Jewish people?

  13. Paula Maybery

    Dr Eli I have just finished reading this article and it is so interesting, I felt I wanted to write even though it has left me deep in thought…It must have been astounding for the Judeans who knew Jesus very well to suddenly hear him saying he is from G-d. and as stated above he was a Jew surrounded by Jews because the world had not expanded so greatly, I do understand the neutral pluralness of’own’ and the masculine 2nd ‘own’… Bless us all as we ponder!

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Paula, thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog.

  14. […] It is likely that we should understand Jn. 1.11-12 within this context: “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who b… […]

  15. […] It is likely that we should understand Jn. 1.11-12 within this context: “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who b… […]

  16. Charles van den Berg

    On this moment I can not open my mouth and ask any question of give any command. When I think out this things I only can by quiet and again wondering my God and His Word (written LOGOS, You became for me flesh and blood in Jezus Christ). In my heart is again a new and deeper secret longing to know more about my Messiah (Redeemer) , The Revealer of alle secrets of heaven and earth and tot know Him is ‘en arche ‘. Let be this my portion in the dialogue on this moment. Thanks you for all this richniss. Charles L. van den Berg.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Dear Charles, thank you for your comment. Let us continue to be amazed at the words of the Living God.

  17. […] Galilean story of Jesus’ rejection is not mentioned at all. It is possible therefore, that “his own received him not” (Jn.1.11) must be read in connection to that largely Judean, Jerusale… Jesus was Jerusalem-centered, Temple-centered Galilean Jew who was not accepted by his own, not in […]

  18. Eric Rodríguez

    Addenda et corrigenda:

    “On that season Yehoshua’ sang and said…”

  19. Eric Rodríguez

    Here, is when becomes true the Bialik Maxima: Read the hebrew Bible in other language (mode of think) than in its original Hebrew, is like to kiss a beautiful woman with a veil between you and her. Dr. Eli is right. Context, via Miqra’ Mesoras מקרא מסורס, (Lectio inversa) is clear: None was able to receive God’s light,His Messiah,by proper means/ways/merits; there were no conscience of the everlasting life in all around the world, we all, got in darkness!!. so, God decided (Shines) to beget Sons throughout a “Spiritual adoption”, because only Yehoshúa’ the Messiah was a “natural” son. So, we all, jewish and non-jewish which have received this adoption, that true Light as a gift, became his sons. Are irrelevant the considerations about the word ιδία / ιδιοι here, because in verse Jn 1:12 are all people included, never take off the jews, who indeed, as Dr. Eli says, were the preponderant number of believers at the beginning. But, for the sake of the true, and clarity, is important to remember that the word ιδια / ιδιοι was used in Septuaginta for meaning בית “house” (Es 5:10), חניך “servants” (Gn 14:14), and מכורה “Homeland”(Ez 21:30). In particular, חניך (Chanich) plays in sense with the word מחנך (mechanech, master, teacher, guide); so, His ιδια (Chanichim), are “those who should have had the capacity of guide the people about the true light”, this is the majority of the sages of Israel in that moment. The Jewish people, the average people, who wasn’t Chanichim, received him!!!!! Haleluyah!

    1. Eric Rodríguez

      The hebrew text maybe is:
      אל חניכיו(מחנכיו) בא, וחניכיו(מחנכיו) לא קבלוהו
      אבל את כל מקבליו נתן רשות לההיות בנים לאלהים
      To his servants/Instructed/educated came, but His servants/Instructed/educated didn’t received him. On the Contrary, to all who received him, gave the authorization to become Son to/of God

      1. Eric Rodríguez


        Excuse me, the correct grammar is:
        אבל לכל מקבליו נתן רשות…
        I don’t know what I was thinking about 😀

    2. Eric Rodríguez

      Another quote I can apport to suppor this hypothesis is Mt 11:25 “In that season , Jesus sang and said: I praise you Father, Master of the Universe, because you hid these (things) from wises and clevers (The sages) and revelated them to the Children (the common and “ignorant” people (Cf. Jn 7:48-49, “Did someone of the governors or Pharisees believe in him? But this people which doesn’t know the Torah, is cursed” )

  20. Humberto Meza

    Google translation of the original post: The difference in language should not be an obstacle for someone who knows the scriptures, from the objective point of view John was referring to the mission of Jesus, to the things He made​​, however, and demonstrated. and this is also Isaias 61.Citado in Matthew, Mark, Luke. the same goal (of Jesus) is your thing. Matthew 4:17. Jesus announced the kingdom of cielos.el kingdom of heaven is jesus supernatural demonstration that bothered the religious Jews, John the Baptist was sent to investigate whether the Messiah was to come and tells him to say. the blind see, the lame, the dumb speak andan.lo yours is the kingdom, which came to restore and establish a new order, John takes the words of Jesus and Chapter 17 reveals his mission to inform the parent. however it is Peter who teaches the most powerful gospel revelation 2nd Peter 1: 4 and is an invitation to be partakers of the divine nature of Christ which is the proof itself.

    La diferencia idiomatica no debe ser un obstáculo para alguien que conozca las escrituras, desde el punto de vista objetivo juan se refería a la misión misma de Jesús, a las cosas que El, hizo, cambio, y demostró. y esto es Isaias 61.Citado también en Mateo,Marcos, lucas. el objetivo mismo (de jesus) es lo suyo. Mateo 4:17. jesus anuncio el Reino de los cielos.el Reino de los cielos es la demostración sobrenatural de jesus que incomodaba a los religiosos judíos, juan el bautista manda a indagar si era el mesías que habría de venir y el le manda a decir. los ciegos ven, los mudos hablan los cojos andan.lo suyo es el Reino,el cual vino a restaurar, y establecer un nuevo orden; Juan recoge las palabras de jesus y el capitulo 17 revela su misión dar a conocer al padre. no obstante es Pedro quien da a conocer la mas poderosa revelación del evangelio 2º de Pedro 1: 4 y es una invitación a ser participantes de la naturaleza Divina de la cual cristo es la demostración misma.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Shalom, Humberto. Your point probably because of translation did not come in very clearly. Your poinst that Jesus claimed to be God and THAT turned people off in a sense that it did not fit Judaism of the time? If, so this is not exactly, right. Among other things you can read Daniel Boyarin’s Book Jewish Gospels. See the section on the Son of Man in Jewish religious literature.

  21. marcela paredes

    Dr Eli
    in one or other interpretation, evry people can be chidren of God, jews or no “12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes, of course and first-class at that!

  22. Margaret Comstock

    We hear this gospel at the end of every high Mass. I always assumed that ‘his own’ referred to his home town – where he could not do many miracles. The problem of a prophet…..
    This is an interesting discussion – I wish there were more responses.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      You were reading it less traditionally, but more accuretly.

  23. Dr. Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

    Your logic here is problematic not only because is grammatically unnatural (remember its not only in neuter, its also in PLURAL) but you are arguing in a circular (though certainly traditional logic) here. The Jews rejected Jesus as a nation later in the Gospel, therefore its beginning has to be about them. The trouble is that the later reading IS IN FACT determined by how you read this verse and not vica versa.

  24. Julie

    I see it is an accusative neutral plural but simply means; his own land, home area, country….city,temple…. He took upon himself a fleshly form and came to the race to which he was united by fleshly ties; …the second is: his own(people); his own received him not.
    His own is the Jewish nation, who received him not….if you grew up with someone in your neighborhood and suddenly he announces he is God’s only begotten Son and even claims to be one WITH the Father then it would be kinda hard to accept…. but Mary KNEW he was of the Father.

  25. Julie

    I looked this up in Greek and can not see where you think it means ” things”. How could it even mean “things” when it further in says; not many miracles happened because of THEIR (people)unbelief. That passage in Greek says; εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον….. I really don’t find the words ; Ήρθε στη δική πράγματα.= “He came to his own things”

    εἰς(to) τὰ(the) ἴδια(own) ἦλθεν(he came), καὶ (and)οἱ(the) ἴδιοι(own) αὐτὸν(him) οὐ(not) παρέλαβον(received).

    1. Dr. Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Dear Julie, I will provide only partial response to this section, because in the following reply you do say that you now understand what I am saying about gender difference(although you disagree with my take on it). So that’s an improvement. All translation is interpretation in some way the more accurate – the better, the less – the worse. My reference to “things” was there for only an attempt to reflect Neuter Plural in Greek, realizing that its probably not possible to translate this Greek nuance into English so that the difference in what John is saying cab be clearly seen.

  26. eli

    The first couple of people to comment on this one should get a prize for being brave! 🙂