KJV: And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.
YLT: 'And ye, therefore, now, indeed, have sorrow; and again I will see you, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one doth take from you,
Darby: And ye now therefore have grief; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one takes from you.
ASV: And ye therefore now have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one taketh away from you.
καὶ | Also |
Parse: Conjunction Root: καί Sense: and, also, even, indeed, but. |
|
νῦν | now |
Parse: Adverb Root: νῦν Sense: at this time, the present, now. |
|
μὲν | indeed |
Parse: Conjunction Root: μέν Sense: truly, certainly, surely, indeed. |
|
λύπην | grief |
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: λύπη Sense: sorrow, pain, grief, annoyance, affliction. |
|
πάλιν | again |
Parse: Adverb Root: πάλιν Sense: anew, again. |
|
δὲ | however |
Parse: Conjunction Root: δέ Sense: but, moreover, and, etc. |
|
ὄψομαι | I will see |
Parse: Verb, Future Indicative Middle, 1st Person Singular Root: εἶδον Sense: to see with the eyes. |
|
χαρήσεται | will rejoice |
Parse: Verb, Future Indicative Passive, 3rd Person Singular Root: χαίρω Sense: to rejoice, be glad. |
|
ὑμῶν | your |
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive 2nd Person Plural Root: σύ Sense: you. |
|
ἡ | - |
Parse: Article, Nominative Feminine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
καρδία | heart |
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Singular Root: καρδία Sense: the heart. |
|
χαρὰν | joy |
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: χαρά Sense: joy, gladness. |
|
ὑμῶν | of you |
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive 2nd Person Plural Root: σύ Sense: you. |
|
οὐδεὶς | no one |
Parse: Adjective, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: οὐδείς Sense: no one, nothing. |
|
αἴρει | will take |
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: αἴρω Sense: to raise up, elevate, lift up. |
Greek Commentary for John 16:22
See John 8:38 for like emphasis on ye The “sorrow” The metaphor points, of course, to the resurrection of Jesus which did change the grief of the disciples to gladness, once they are convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead. But I will see you again Future middle of οραω horaō to see. In John 16:16, John 16:19 Jesus had said “ye shall see me” Shall rejoice Second future passive of χαιρω chairō Taketh away Present active indicative, futuristic present, but B D have αρει arei the future active (shall take away). This joy is a permanent possession. [source]
This form of expression occurs frequently in the New Testament, to denote the possession or experience of virtues, sensations, desires, emotions, intellectual or spiritual faculties, faults, or defects. It is stronger than the verb which expresses any one of these. For instance, to have faith is stronger than to believe: to have life, than the act of living. It expresses a distinct, personal realization of the virtue or fault or sentiment in question. Hence, to have sorrow is more than to be sorrowful. In Matthew 17:20, Christ does not say if ye believe, but if ye have faith; if faith, in ever so small a degree, is possessed by you as a conscious, living principle and motive. Compare have love (John 13:35; 1 John 4:16); have peace (John 16:33); have trust (2 Corinthians 3:4); have boldness (Hebrews 10:19; 1 John 2:28). [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for John 16:22
Clear statement that they are not doing “the works of Abraham” in seeking to kill him. See this use of νυν δε nun de after a condition of second class without αν an in John 16:22, John 16:24. This did not Abraham Blunt and pointed of their unlikeness to Abraham. A man that hath told you the truth Αντρωπον Anthrōpon (here = person, one) is accusative case in apposition with me Here we have “I” in the English. “God” here is equal to “My Father” in John 8:38. The only crime of Jesus is telling the truth directly from God. [source]
The brief period now till Christ‘s death as in John 7:33; John 13:33; John 14:19. Again a little while The period between the death and the resurrection of Jesus (from Friday afternoon till Sunday morning). Ye shall see me Future middle of οπτομαι optomai the verb used in John 1:51; John 16:22 as here of spiritual realities (Bernard), though τεωρεω theōreō is so used in John 20:14. [source]
First aorist active indicative of δεικνυμι deiknumi This body, not yet glorified, retained the marks of the nails and of the soldier‘s spear, ample proof of the bodily resurrection against the modern view that only Christ‘s “spirit” arose and against the Docetic notion that Jesus had no actual human body. Luke (Luke 24:39.) adds feet to hands and side. Were glad Second aorist passive indicative of χαιρω chairō Jesus had said (John 16:22) that it would be so. Luke adds (Luke 24:41) that they “disbelieved for joy.” It was too good to be true, though terror had first seized them when Jesus appeared (Luke 24:37) because of the suddenness of Christ‘s appearance and their highly wrought state. [source]
Second aorist indicative of γινωσκω ginōskō to know. It is a conclusion of a second class condition, determined as unfulfilled. Usually αν an is used in the conclusion to make it plain that it is second class condition instead of first class, but occasionally it is not employed when it is plain enough without as here (John 16:22, John 16:24). See note on Galatians 4:15. So as to I had not known coveting (lust), epithumian ouk ēidein But all the same the law is not itself sin nor the cause of sin. Men with their sinful natures turn law into an occasion for sinful acts. [source]
This is the conclusion of a condition of the second class without αν an expressed which would have made it clearer. But see John 16:22, John 16:24; Romans 7:7 for similar examples where the context makes it plain without αν an It is strong language and is saved from hyperbole by “if possible” Did Paul not have at this time serious eye trouble? [source]
d Summarizing the contents of Hebrews 7:26, Hebrews 7:27. - The law constitutes weak men high priests. God's sworn declaration constitutes a son, perfected forevermore. Ἀνθρώπους menmany in number as contrasted with one Son. Ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν havinginfirmity, stronger than ἀσθενεῖς weakwhich might imply only special exhibitions of weakness, while having infirmity indicates a general characteristic. See on John 16:22. [source]
Rev., boldness. See on 1 John 2:28; see on John 7:13. On have boldness, see on John 16:22. [source]
Torment is a faulty translation. The word means punishment, penalty. It occurs in the New Testament only here and Matthew 25:46. The kindred verb, κολάζομαι topunish, is found Acts 4:21; 2 Peter 2:9. Note the present tense, hath. The punishment is present. Fear by anticipating punishment has it even now. The phrase hath punishment (see on John 16:22) indicates that the punishment is inherent in the fear. Fear carries its own punishment. Augustine, commenting on the expulsion of fear by love, says: “As in sewing, we see the thread passed through by the needle. The needle is first pushed in, but the thread cannot be introduced until the needle is brought out. So fear first occupies the mind, but does not remain permanently, because it entered for the purpose of introducing love.” The words because fear hath punishment are parenthetical. [source]
More strictly, as Rev., the life; i.e., the life which God gave (1 John 5:11). See on John 16:22. Compare Christ who is our life (Colossians 3:4). [source]
On this use of ἔχειν tohave, see on John 16:22. Compare John 8:35. [source]
John's only reference to Christian hope. The phrase used here, to have the hope upon one, is unique in the New Testament. Compare ἐπ ' αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν “on Him shall the Gentiles hope” (Romans 15:12): ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ Θεῷ ζῶντι “we have hoped on the living God” (1 Timothy 4:10). On the force of ἔχων , see on John 16:22. [source]
Rev., rendering the perfect tense more closely, hath the love of God been perfected. The change in the form of this antithetic clause is striking. He who claims to know God, yet lives in disobedience, is a liar. We should expect as an offset to this: He that keepeth His commandments is of the truth; or, the truth is in him. Instead we have, “In him has the love of God been perfected.” In other words, the obedient child of God is characterized, not by any representative trait or quality of his own personality, but merely as the subject of the work of divine love: as the sphere in which that love accomplishes its perfect work. The phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ the love of God, may mean either the love which God shows, or the love of which God is the object, or the love which is characteristic of God whether manifested by Himself or by His obedient child through His Spirit. John's usage is not decisive like Paul's, according to which the love of God habitually means the love which proceeds from and is manifested by God. The exact phrase, the love of God or the love of the Father, is found in 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:9, in the undoubted sense of the love of God to men. The same sense is intended in 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 3:16, though differently expressed. The sense is doubtful in 1 John 2:5; 1 John 3:17; 1 John 4:12. Men's love to God is clearly meant in 1 John 2:15; 1 John 5:3. The phrase occurs only twice in the Gospels (Luke 6:42; John 5:42), and in both cases the sense is doubtful. Some, as Ebrard, combine the two, and explain the love of God as the mutual relation of love between God and men. It is not possible to settle the point decisively, but I incline to the view that the fundamental idea of the love of God as expounded by John is the love which God has made known and which answers to His nature. In favor of this is the general usage of ἀγάπη lovein the New Testament, with the subjective genitive. The object is more commonly expressed by εἰς towardsor to. See 1 Thessalonians 3:12; Colossians 1:4; 1 Peter 4:8. Still stronger is John's treatment of the subject in ch. 4. Here we have, 1 John 4:9, the manifestation of the love of God in us ( ἐν ἡμῖν ) By our life in Christ and our love to God we are a manifestation of God's love. Directly following this is a definition of the essential nature of love. “In this is love; i.e., herein consists love: not that we have loved God, but that He loved us ” (1 John 4:10). Our mutual love is a proof that God dwells in us. God dwelling in us, His love is perfected in us (1 John 4:12). The latter clause, it would seem, must be explained according to 1 John 4:10. Then (1 John 4:16), “We have known and believed the love that God hath in us ” (see on John 16:22, on the phrase have love ). “God is love;” that is His nature, and He imparts this nature to be the sphere in which His children dwell. “He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God.” Finally, our love is engendered by His love to us. “We love Him because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In harmony with this is John 15:9. “As the Father loved me, I also loved you. Continue ye in my love.” My love must be explained by I loved you. This is the same idea of divine love as the sphere or element of renewed being; and this idea is placed, as in the passage we are considering, in direct connection with the keeping of the divine commandments. “If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love.”-DIVIDER- This interpretation does not exclude man's love to God. On the contrary, it includes it. The love which God has, is revealed as the love of God in the love of His children towards Him, no less than in His manifestations of love to them. The idea of divine love is thus complex. Love, in its very essence, is reciprocal. Its perfect ideal requires two parties. It is not enough to tell us, as a bare, abstract truth, that God is love. The truth must be rounded and filled out for us by the appreciable exertion of divine love upon an object, and by the response of the object. The love of God is perfected or completed by the perfect establishment of the relation of love between God and man. When man loves perfectly, his love is the love of God shed abroad in his heart. His love owes both its origin and its nature to the love of God. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The word verily ( ἀληθῶς ) is never used by John as a mere formula of affirmation, but has the meaning of a qualitative adverb, expressing not merely the actual existence of a thing, but its existence in a manner most absolutely corresponding to ἀλήθεια truthCompare John 1:48; John 8:31. Hath been perfected. John is presenting the ideal of life in God. “This is the love of God that we keep His commandments.” Therefore whosoever keepeth God's word, His message in its entirety, realizes the perfect relation of love. [source]
This word introduces us to one of the main thoughts of the Epistle. The true life in man, which comes through the acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God, consists in fellowship with God and with man. On the word, see on Acts 2:42; see on Luke 5:10. The verb κοινωνέω tocome into fellowship, to be made a partner, to be partaker of, occurs 1 Peter 4:13; 2 John 1:11; Hebrews 2:14, etc. The expression here, ( ἔχειν κοινωνίαν ) is stronger, since it expresses the enjoyment or realization of fellowship, as compared with the mere fact of fellowship. See on John 16:22. [source]
Ὅτι thatmay be taken merely as a mark of quotation: “If we say, sin we have not.” On the phrase to have sin, see on John 16:22, and compare have fellowship, 1 John 1:3. Sin ( ἁμαρτίαν ) is not to be understood of original sin, or of sin before conversion, but generally. “It is obvious that this ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν (to have sin ), is infinitely diversified, according to the successive measure of the purification and development of the new man. Even the apostle John does not exclude himself from the universal if we say ” (Ebrard). Heathen authors say very little about sin, and classic paganism had little or no conception of sin in the Gospel sense. The nearest approach to it was by Plato, from whose works a tolerably complete doctrinal statement might be gathered of the origin, nature, and effects of sin. The fundamental idea of ἁμαρτία (sin ) among the Greeks is physical; the missing of a mark (see on Matthew 1:21; see on Matthew 6:14); from which it develops into a metaphysical meaning, to wander in the understanding. This assumes knowledge as the basis of goodness; and sin, therefore, is, primarily, ignorance. In the Platonic conception of sin, intellectual error is the prominent element. Thus: “What then, I said, is the result of all this? Is not this the result - that other things are indifferent, and that wisdom is the only good, and ignorance the only evil?” (“Euthydemus,” 281). “The business of the founders of the state will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which has been already declared by us to be the greatest of all - they must continue to rise until they arrive at the good” (“Republic,” vii., 519). Plato represents sin as the dominance of the lower impulses of the soul, which is opposed to nature and to God (see “Laws,” ix., 863. “Republic,” i., 351). Or again, as an inward want of harmony. “May we not regard every living being as a puppet of the gods, either their plaything only or created with a purpose - which of the two we cannot certainly know? But this we know, that these affections in us are like cords and strings which pull us different and opposite ways, and to opposite actions; and herein lies the difference between virtue and vice” (“Laws,” i., 644). He traces most sins to the influence of the body on the soul. “In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible communion or fellowship with the body, and are not infected with the bodily nature, but remain pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us. And then the foolishness of the body will be cleared away, and we shall be pure, and hold converse with other pure souls, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere, which is no other than the light of truth” (“Phedo,” 67). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- We find in the classical writers, however, the occasional sense of the universal faultiness of mankind, though even Plato furnishes scarcely any traces of accepting the doctrine of innate depravity. Thus Theognis: “The sun beholds no wholly good and virtuous man among those who are now living” (615). “But having become good, to remain in a good state and be good, is not possible, and is not granted to man. God only has this blessing; but man cannot help being bad when the force of circumstances overpowers him” (Plato, “Protagoras,” 344). “ How, then: is it possible to be sinless? It is impossible; but this is possible, to strive not to sin” (“Epictetus,” iv., 12,19). [source]