John 10:31

Joh_10:31-33

Then the Jews took up stones again

Religious intolerance

persecutes a man on account of

I.

HIS RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. The Jews took up stones merely because Christ had proclaimed a doctrine which was in conflict with their opinions, prejudices, interests and pride. This intolerance has been rampant in every age. It cannot now inflict physical suffering, but it employs means more subtle and powerful to wound the supposed heretic. Such conduct is

1. Most absurd. Such are the constitutional differences in minds and educational processes that it is almost impossible for two persons to have exactly the same view of the same subject. The inevitable diversity is interesting and useful; it stimulates discussion and promotes thought. Were all to think alike how monotonous would be the social life of the world!

2. Most arrogant. There is no greater audacity than for an individual or a Church to attempt to bring all mens opinions to one theological standard. Who were Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley that men should be bound to accept their opinions? Jesus I know, and Paul, etc. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

II. HOWEVER EXCELLENT HIS LIFE MAY BE (Joh_10:32). Numerous were the works of Christ, and all to bless men both in body and soul. He went about doing good. This was not denied, but tacitly admitted, and yet though they knew that He was their greatest Benefactor, and that His character was one of exemplary excellence, because His doctrine clashed with their opinions they stoned Him. Good men here in England are stoned for their opinions, not with flint or granite, but with slander and social influences. Bigots of all sects throw stones at men, not because they are not good, but because they are not of their sect (Joh_10:33). We stone thee because Thou art not one of us.

III. HOWEVER STRONG THE ARGUMENTS IN THEIR FAVOUR (Joh_10:34-36). Christ seems to say that even in the assumption that He was no more than man there was no blasphemy. Their law called magistrates gods Psa_32:6). And if they allowed that, what blasphemy was there in Him who was sanctified by the Father, One with the Father, and who, as they were bound to acknowledge, performed works which those whom their law called gods never had accomplished and never could? If your Scriptures call men gods unto whom the Word of God came, surely there can be no blasphemy in Me representing Myself as God, who am the Word of God itself. The argument is a minori ad magus. In what respect?

1. From those blameworthy judges and their lofty title to Christ.

2. From those who derived their dignity from the Mosaic institution to Him whom God hath sanctified.

3. From those to whom the Word of God did but come, to Him who was the Word of God. But His argument went for nothing, although it was so clear and conclusive. Conclusion: What an accursed thing this religious intolerance is! Absurd, arrogant, cruel, regardless of moral excellence, dead to argument, alive only to what it deems heresy. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The courage of Christ

Holy boldness honours the gospel. In the olden times, when Oriental despots had things pretty much their own way, they expected all ambassadors from the West to lay their mouths in the dust if permitted to appear before his Celestial Brightness, the Brother of the Sun and the Cousin of the Moon. Certain money-loving traders agreed to all this, and ate dust as readily as reptiles; but, when England sent her ambassadors abroad, the daring islanders stood bolt upright. They were told that they could not be indulged with a vision of the Brother of the Sun and Cousin of the Moon, without going down on their hands and knees. Very well, said the Englishmen, we will dispense with the luxury; but tell his Celestial Splendour, that it is very likely that his Serenity will hear our cannon at his palace gates before long, and that their booming is not quite so harmless as the cooing of his Sublimitys doves. When it was seen that ambassadors of the British Crown were no cringing petitioners, our empire rose in the respect of Oriental nations. It must be just so with the cross of Christ. Our cowardice has subjected the gospel to contempt. Jesus was humble, and His servants must not be proud; but Jesus was never mean or cowardly, nor must His servants be. There was no braver man than Christ upon earth.

The Scripture cannot be broken

The integrity of Scripture

I. THE GRAND PRINCIPLE ASSERTED. It is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that a teaching is gaining ground whose fundamental principle is opposed to this, and which affirms that the Scripture can be broken. It is of the first importance that we should distinctly understand the amount of authority which is due to the Bible. The Romanists say that tradition is of co-ordinate authority with the Bible; the Rationalists that only part of the Bible is authoritative, and what portions are to be received as such is determined by the verifying faculty. When Christ endorses, as He does in the text, the Old Testament, these philosophers affirm that He was liable to mistake, and so overthrew His prophetic office and nullify His mission, which was to bear witness to the Truth. But turn from theory to fact, and we find that Christs affirmation is proved.

1. From the history of the Jews, who from their first settlement as a nation down to the present moment show in all their vicissitudes that the Scripture cannot be broken.

2. From the fate of heathen nations. Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, and Sidon, etc., verify the predictions to the very letter.

3. The life of our Lord, every detail of which from Bethlehem and Calvary was detailed beforehand, and occurred that it might be fulfilled.

II. THE BASIS ON WHICH THE PRINCIPLE RESTS.

1. That mans word may be broken. Why is it that friends and relatives in the slightest business transaction have a legal and written form?

(1) Because man is changeable. That which he honestly and determinately promises today he may see reasons to change tomorrow, or he may change from simple fickleness.

(2) Man is sometimes unfaithful, and deliberately false to his engagements.

(3) Man is often unable to fulfil his promises and obligations, however willing he may be.

2. That for contrary reasons Gods word cannot be broken.

(1) God is unchangeable. His counsel shall stand.

(2) God is faithful. God is not a man that He should lie.

(3) God is able. These points are well illustrated in the promise to Abraham.

III. APPLICATION.

1. For comfort.

(1) To the Church. In every age Gods people have been depressed by the taunt, Where is the promise of His coming? But God takes time to fulfil His word. Be patient, it cannot be broken.

(2) To the individual believer. He has delivered in six troubles and He will deliver in seven. Past promises fulfilled are assurances that His word cannot be broken.

2. For warning. Though Gods threatenings be long delayed for merciful reasons they will assuredly be fulfilled. (Cannon Miller.)

Christs reverence for Scripture

I. WHAT IS MEANT BY SCRIPTURE? The Old Testament as accepted by the Jews of our Lords Day.

1. This fixes the canon of Scripture for Christians and excludes the apocrypha.

2. This stamps the Old Testament with a Divine authority, against which it is infidelity and blasphemy to protest.

II. HOW DID CHRIST DEAL WITH SCRIPTURE?

1. He was zealous in fulfilling it. In looking at Christ as our example this is to be observed. Scripture declares what Christ would be and do and suffer, and all this He was and did and suffered that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. It tells us too what we must be and do and suffer, and in order to these we must follow Christ, and in the earnest eager spirit in which He saw that no jot or tittle of the word concerning Him was broken.

2. He submitted to it. The only man capable of judging for Himself always submitted His judgment to the written Word.

(1) As the servant of God He came to do Gods will; but that will was not Gods secret will, but His will as declared in the Bible.

(2) He submitted to that will without question, and with the utmost joyfulness.

III. THE USE CHRIST MADE OF SCRIPTURE.

1. As a weapon against His enemies. To the devil in the wilderness He said, It is written, and to the Sadducees about the Resurrection (Mat_22:1-46).

2. As His authority. When He drove the money changers from the Temple, His only warrant for doing so was It is written. On the same grounds He defended His disciples for plucking corn on the Sabbath.

3. As the court of final appeal in different questions (Mat_19:1-30).

4. As His inspiration for suffering (Luk_13:1-35).

5. As a consolation in trials. (J. W. Reeve, M. A.)

If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not

The works of Jesus the works of God

The works of God must necessarily have relation to the attributes of God, and in their nature must partake of His. Will the works of Jesus sustain this test? If so, then His claim to be one with the Father is made out. Note, then, that the works of Jesus were

I. WORKS OF MERCY AND LOVE, and this without exception; the seeming exceptions when fully examined are seen not to be really so. Consistently and continuously He went about doing good. All succeeding time has acknowledged the influence of heavenly love which eighteen hundred years ago was manifested. Charity has ever taken her lessons from it. He was merciful as His Father was merciful; and His mercy on the diseased bore witness then, as His mercy on the sinful bears witness now, that He and the Father are one.

II. WORKS OF WISDOM. His contemporaries confessed as much--Whence hath this Man this wisdom, etc. His works were performed at the right time, in the right way, on the right persons. He made no mistake in His diagnosis, in His prescription, in His application of His remedies, nor in the result. The cleverest men fail in one or other of these circumstances. It is the same now with His administration of His providence, and the pardoned sinner and the comforted saint alike are constrained to say, Thou hast done all things well. Of whom can this be said but of Him who, being the wisdom of God, could say, I and the Father are one.

III. WORKS OF POWER. Divine love, as exhibited on earth, can, in a measure, be imitated, and Divine wisdom as taught on earth, can, in a measure, be communicated and received. But power belongeth unto God. This power was demonstrated by Christ. He was no Divine instrument as were the miracle-working prophets. There is a Divine independence and originality about all His operations. I say unto thee arise. And the power that made men walk in apostolic days was the power of Jesus of Nazareth, and the power which now heals the decrepitude of sinful man is His. Conclusion: This testimony to the mutual onebeing of Father and Son (Joh_10:33) is

1. Sufficient.

2. Hence our responsibility.

Without this evidence men are guiltless, for they are not unbelieving, but ignorant. But with this evidence before Him, for a man to refuse to believe in Christs Deity, and to decline to submit to His claims, is morally fatal. (J. W. Burn.)

Indisputable evidence

shows

I. WHAT MEN MIGHT LOOK FOR IN THE WORKS OF GOD.

1. Wisdom.

2. Mercy.

3. Love.

4. Power.

II. THAT THE WORKS OF JESUS WERE MARKED BY THESE CHARACTERISTICS.

1. Water made into wine.

2. The miracles of healing.

3. The resurrection of Lazarus.

4. His own resurrection.

III. THAT NOT TO SEE THESE FEATURES IN THE WORKS OF JESUS IS TO BE BLINDED BY PREJUDICE. As in the case of the Jews.

IV. THAT TO REJECT THE DIVINITY OF HIM WHICH DID SUCH WORKS IS THE HEIGHT OF FOLLY. We judge of the nature of a creature by its works. When we see a birds nest we know that it was not made by a horse; when we see an ant hill we know that no lion threw it up; as we contemplate a building or read a book we have evidence of the work of man. But what creature can give sight to the blind, life to the dead? etc.

The works of Christ

The term works, as applied to the miracles of our Lord, is eminently significant; as though the wonderful were only the natural form of working for Him who is dwelt in by all the fulness of God; He must, out of the necessity of His higher being, bring forth these works greater than mans. They are the periphery of the circle whereof He is the centre. The great miracle is the Incarnation; all else, so to speak, follows naturally and of course. It is no wonder that He whose name is Wonderful does works of wonder; the only wonder would be if He did them not. The sun in the heavens is itself a wonder: but it is not a wonder that, being what it is, it rays forth its influences of light and heat. These miracles are the fruit after its kind which this tree brings forth; and may be called the works of Christ, with no further addition or explanation. (Archbishop Trench.)

The evidential value of Christs works

Consider the general expression respecting our Lords Person which arises upon a survey of our Lords miracles. To a thoughtful humanitarian they present, taken as a whole, an embarrassing difficulty. In the case of the miracles of power, Schenkel observes: These are not cures which could have been effected by the influence of a striking sanctity acting on a simple faith. They are prodigies such as Omnipotence alone could achieve. The laws of nature are simply suspended. Jesus does not here merely exhibit the power of moral and mental superiority over common men; He upsets and goes beyond the rules and bounds of the order of the universe. The writer proceeds to argue that such miracles must be expelled from any life of Christ which criticism will condescend to accept. But the question arises how much is to be expelled? Is the Resurrection, e.g.? If so, then there is nothing left to argue about, for Christianity itself is gone (1Co_15:14; 1Co_15:13). And if this conclusion be objected to, we must reply that our Lords credit and honour were entirely staked upon this issue (Mat_12:39-40) But the Resurrection was attested by evidence which must outweigh everything except an a priori conviction of the impossibility of miracles, since it was attested by two hundred and fifty persons (1Co_15:6). As to a priori objections, St. Paul would have argued, as most Theists, and even Rousseau have argued, that they cannot be urged by any man who believed seriously in a living God at all. But on the other hand, if the Resurrection be admitted, it is puerile to object to the other miracles. As compared with them, that occurrence has all the force of an a fortiori argument, and are fitly complemental incidents of a history in which the Resurrection has made it plain that we are dealing with One in whose case an ordinary experience of the limits and conditions of human power are altogether at fault. But if the miracles of Jesus be admitted in the block, as they must be by a rational believer in the Resurrection, then they point to the Catholic belief, as distinct from any lower conceptions respecting the Person of Christ. They differ from those of prophets and apostles, in that, instead of being answers to prayer granted by a Higher Power, they manifestly flow forth from the majestic life resident in the Worker. And instead of presenting so many difficulties which have to be surmounted or set aside, they are in entire harmony with that representation of our Saviours personal glory which is embodied in the Creeds. St. John accordingly calls them Christs works, meaning that they were just such acts as might be expected from Him, being such as He was. They are like the kind deeds of the wealthy, or the good advice of the wise; they are like that debt of charity which is due from the possessors of great endowments to suffering humanity--Christ as Man owed this tribute of mercy which His Godhead had made it possible for Him to pay to those whom (such was His love) He was not ashamed to call His brethren. (Canon Liddon)

.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10:31-33 The people realized Jesus’ meaning (see 10:33) and wanted to kill him. The problem was not Jesus’ good works, but his claim to divinity (see 6:42, 60; 7:29-30). Committing blasphemy was punishable by stoning (Lev 24:23; see John 8:59).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 10:31. Ἐβάστασαν, they bare) They were therefore large pieces of rock.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_10:31-32. The Jews understood the expression in Joh_10:30 to refer to essential unity, and in their tumultuous and angry excitement would even stone (Lev_24:10 f.) the blasphemer; the overawing impression, however, produced by Christs reply was powerful enough to restrain them.

ἐβάστασαν] sustulerunt (Vulgate), ἀνηέρταζον (Nonnus) they lifted up stones, with the intention of throwing them at Him. The word is more characteristic than αἴρειν in Joh_8:59, though on account of πάλιν the two must have the same import; hence the interpretation: they fetched (Hengstenberg, Godet, and others), is less exact. Compare Hom. Od. λ. 594; Soph. Aj. 814; Polyb. 15. 26. 3.

πάλιν] Joh_8:59.

καλὰ ἔργα] not specially: works of love (Kuinoel, B. Crusius), but in general: praeclara opera, distinguished works.[66]

ἔδειξα ὑμῖν] have I showed you, Joh_5:20. Comp. Joh_2:18; Psa_78:11; Plat. Crat. p. 430 E: τὸ δεῖξαι λέγω εἰς τὴν τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αἴσθησιν καταστῆσαι.

ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς ΜΟΥ] from my Father, who is in me, and from whom, therefore, they go out through me. Compare Joh_10:37-38.

διὰ ποῖον, etc.] propter quale, etc. Not without the irony of profound indignation (comp. 2Co_12:13) does Jesus ask, What, then, is the character of that one of His works, on account of which they are about to stone Him? (λιθάζετε, see Bernhardy, p. 370; Buttm. Neut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. p. 205]). Not as though He did not know why they were intending to stone Him, but probably in the consciousness of having actually shown Himself by His works to be something totally different from a blasphemer.

περὶ βλασφημ. καὶ ὅτι] for blasphemy, and, indeed, because. The reproach: thou makest thyself God (comp. Joh_5:18), i.e. a divine being (Joh_1:1), was a consequence of the mistaken view taken of Joh_10:30, which they had interpreted of essential unity. Καί connects with the general charge a more exact definition of that on which it was based.

[66] Jesus was the more able thus to designate His acts, because He characterized them as works of God performed through Him. The explanation of Luthardt says too little: Works with which no fault can be found.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 10:31 . Ἐβάστασαν οὖν … αὐτόν . In chap. Joh 8:59 , ἦραν λίθους , so now once more, πάλιν , they lifted stones to stone Him.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ proveth his dignity by divine works.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him--and for precisely the same thing as before (Joh 8:58-59).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 31. The Jews took up stones] To stone him as a blasphemer, Le 24:14-16, because he said he was one with God. The evangelist adds the word again, because they had attempted to do this before, see Joh 8:59; but it seems they mere prevented from doing this now by the following discourse.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

31. Then the Jews again took up stones. As true religion, in maintaining the glory of God, burns with its own zeal which the Spirit of God directs, so unbelief is the mother of rage, and the devil hurries on the wicked in such a manner, that they breathe nothing but slaughter. This result shows with what intention they put the question to Christ; for the open confession, of which they pretended to be desirous, instantly drives them to madness. And yet, though they are hurried along, with such violence, to oppress Christ, there can be no doubt that they assigned some plausible reason for their judgment, as if they were acting according to the injunction of the Law, by which God commands that false prophets shall be stoned, (Deuteronomy 13:5.)

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(31) Then the Jews took up stones again.—Better, The Jews therefore . . . Their action follows as an effect caused by His words. The word “again” reminds us that they had done this two months before, at the Feast of Tabernacles (8:59). The words for “took up” are not the same. There the sense is, “they lifted up stones,” and we are told that Jesus hid Himself; here the meaning is, “they carried stones,” there being none in the cloister where they were. During this process their first burst of anger expended itself, and our Lord further disarms it with a question.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

31. Then the Jews] Better, Therefore the Jews: their picking up stones was a direct consequence of His words. But ‘therefore’ should perhaps be omitted. They prepare to act on Lev_24:16 (Comp. 1Ki_21:10). ‘Again’ refers us back to Joh_8:59. The word for ‘took up’ is not the same in each case; the word used here is stronger, implying more effort; ‘lifted up, bore.’ But ‘again’ shews that it refers to raising up from the ground rather than carrying from a distance.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. As they had done before; see Gill on Joh 8:59;

;

John 10:32

joh 10:32

joh 10:32

joh 10:32Jesus answered them, many good works,.... Such as healing the sick, and all manner of diseases; dispossessing devils, cleansing lepers, giving sight to the blind, causing the dumb to speak, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk; which were not only works of power, but of mercy and beneficence; and therefore are called good works, as well as they were great and miraculous ones:

have I showed you from my Father; which Christ did in the name, and by the command and authority of the Father; who gave him them to do, and did them by him; and which were evident and notorious, and were done so openly and publicly, that they could not be denied:

for which of these works do ye stone me? suggesting, that his public life had been a continued series of such kind actions to the sons of men, and it could be for nothing else surely, that they took up stones to stone him; wherefore the part they acted, was a most ungrateful, cruel, and barbarous one.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Ver. 31. Then the Jews took up stones] This is the world’s wages to faithful ministers. Many conceit discharge of their duty without persecution; they would pull a rose without pricks. Non decet, ut sub capite spinis coronato vivant membra in deliciis. (Zanchius.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Jews took up stones - Stoning was the punishment of a blasphemer, Lev 24:14-16. They considered him guilty of blasphemy because he made himself equal with God, Joh 10:33.

Again - They had before plotted against his life Joh 5:16, Joh 5:18, and once at least they had taken up stones to destroy him, Joh 8:59.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Then took up stones, &c. because, they said, being a man, thou makest thyself God. The Jews, says St. Augustine, understood well enough what the Arians will not understand, that from Christ’s words it follows that he was one and the same God with the eternal Father. (Witham) --- The Jews, in opposition to our Saviour’s doctrine, took up stones to destroy him, in order that he might preach no more to them. So heretics at the present time exercise the odium of their impiety against the same Lord, by perverting his holy doctrines, and, as much as in them lies, pulling him and his servants down from the glorious seats of heavenly bliss. (St. Augustine)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Tumultuously, as we read they did once before, Joh 8:59. From whence we may learn with what design they came to Christ, Joh 10:24, plainly to tell them whether he were the Christ. By the law of God the false prophet was to be stoned; but he was first to be judicially tried and judged. This was but a tumultuous action of an enraged multitude.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

31. Took up stones—As before, Joh_8:59; but a different verb used in Greek, implies a more deliberate act; they brought stones. The charge of blasphemy and these stones are the prelude to the final trial and the cross.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 31-39. (3) Resented and challenged, but vindicated by word and sign.

That the Jews supposed him to speak of an essential unity is obvious from what follows. The Jews (then) took up should rather be carried or bore in their handsstones again, huge pieces of marble lying around in the public works then proceeding. There is an increase of malice over and above what was involved in simply lifting stones from the pavement, (cf. Joh_8:59) and the alteration of the word is another hint of the eye-witness. The word "again" reminds the reader that this was a second and more desperate attack upon the life of Jesus.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy:

v. 31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

v. 32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from My Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me?

v. 33. The Jews answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.

v. 34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods?

v. 35. If He called them gods unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

v. 36. say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

v. 37. If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not.

v. 38. But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.

With growing indignation and resentment the Jews had listened to the statements which Jesus made concerning Himself until He reached the climax in the declaration of the essential unity of Himself and the Father. Here they could no longer contain themselves. This seemed to them the essence of blasphemy that this man should say He was one with God. And so they took up stones in order to punish Him for His supposed blasphemy, Lev 24:14-16, as they had attempted to do once before, Joh 8:59. But a further word from Jesus arrested their murderous action. He reminded them of the fact that He had shown them many good works which gave evidence of the authority of the Father; which of these was it that deserved stoning? The Jews answered as they saw the situation. They had no objection to His works, to His miracles, as such. But their belief was that He was a mere man, and as such it was blasphemy for Him to arrogate to Himself the Sonship of God. From: their blind standpoint they were right: it was blasphemy for a man to claim equality with God, or deity for Himself, Deu 18:20; Lev 14:10-17. The modern unbelieving teachers that deny the unity of essence of Father and Son on the ground that this is not taught in Scriptures are blinder than the Jews were in this instance. But Jesus here proves to the Jews that His claim was no blasphemy, by referring to Psa 82:6. If the leaders of the people, through whom the Word of God was delivered to the Jews, were called gods, how much more does He deserve the designation who was separated, ordained, hallowed, and sent out by God for this work which He was now performing? In bringing this proof, the Lord states an axiom for the inerrancy of Scriptures which needs particular emphasis in our days: The Scripture cannot be dissolved, cannot be broken, cannot be put aside; it must ever stand unchallenged, word for word, as the eternal truth of God. In the case of the Old Testament teachers, the commission of God usually found them engaged in the works of their earthly calling, from which they were raised to their new dignity and received the honoring appellation, but Jesus was set apart by the Father from eternity for the work of salvation, and He was now performing the works of the Father, such works as in themselves are evidence that the Father is in Him and He in the Father. That is the eternal relation in the Trinity between Father and Son: the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. This relation has not been set aside by the incarnation of the Son, but was exhibited in the miracles and in all the works which Jesus did. If the Jews therefore chose not to believe His words, they could not deny the evidence of His works. The testimony of His deeds was overwhelmingly strong in establishing the fact of the intimate relationship between Him and the Father, just as He had stated. Note: There is no possibility of weakening the force of this argument but by asserting that the miracles of Jesus did not take place by the power of God. But that would place Jesus in the class of base deceivers and cheats, a conclusion which even the most liberal teachers hesitate to make.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. How the Jews understood our Saviour affirming, that he and the Father are one; that is, one in essence and nature, and himself a person equal with God. This they looked upon as blasphemy in him, to arrogate to himself what is proper to God only.

Observe, 2. That the Jews looked upon it as a piece of justice in them to stone Christ for this apprehended blasphemy; Then the Jews took up stones to stone him. According to the law of God, the blasphemer was to be stoned to death, but then he was first to be judicially tried and judged; but such was the furious and fiery zeal of these Jews, that in a tumultuous manner they attempt to stone him to death. Lord! how far doth the fury of men, in opposing truth, outstrip the true zeal of they faithful servants in defending truth!

Observe, 3. With what meekness our Lord receives this horrid indignity of stoning (for it is probable, that some stones were cast at him, he saying, For which of these works do ye stone me?) he clears his own innocence, and expostulates with them for rewarding him evil for good: Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; that is, by my Father’s authority and commission; I have been sight to the blind, feet to the lame, a tongue to the dumb, and hearing to the deaf; do any of these works deserve such usage as stoning at your hands?

Learn hence, That such was the perfect and spotless innocence of Christ in all his actions, that he durst and did appeal to the consciences of his most inveterate adversaries; For which of these works do ye stone me?

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

31. ἐβάστ. πάλιν. They prepare to act on Lev 24:16 (comp. 1Ki 21:10). Πάλιν refers to Joh 8:59, where we have ἧραν for ἐβάστασαν. The latter implies more effort; ‘lifted up, bore:’ but we cannot be sure whether it refers to raising from the ground or to carrying from a distance. The change from ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπ’ αὐτόν to ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν, as from ἧραν to ἐβάστασαν may indicate that this was a more deliberate attempt to carry out the law of blasphemy. S. John uses the classical λιθάζειν (Joh 10:32-33, Joh 11:8), whereas the Synoptists use the LXX. word λιθοβολεῖν (Mat 21:35; Mat 23:37; Luk 13:34). In the Acts both words occur (Act 5:26, Act 7:58).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

31.] i.e. as having spoken blasphemy, Lev 24:10 ff.

“ἐβάστασαν, sustulerunt (Vulg.)—they lifted up in the air, in act to throw at him. It is more than αἴρειν, ch. 8:59. Cf. Hom. Od. λ. 594 (λᾶαν βαστάζοντα πελώριον ἀμφοτέρῃσιν), Polyb. 15:26. 3 (βαστάσας τὸ παιδίον).” Meyer.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

31. The Jewish opponents of Jesus, with a true instinct, perceived that He was claiming to be more than human.

ἐβάστασαν πάλιν (cf. 8:59) λίθους οἱ Ἰουδ. κτλ. For βαστάζειν, see on 12:6 below. Here it means “to lift up and carry off,” and expresses more than αἴρειν in the similar context in 8:59. They fetched stones from a distance, that they might stone Him. The verb λιθάζειν does not occur in the Synoptists, but cf. 11:8.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Took up - again [εβαστασαν - παλιν] . Again refers to Joh 8:59. It seems as though a different verb is purposely chosen here (compare hran took up, in Joh 8:59), since the interview took place in Solomon 's porch, where stones would not be at hand. The verb here may mean to take up. So Ajax says :

"Send some one as a messenger to bear The evil news to Teucros, that he first May lift [βασταση] my corpse by this sharp sword transfixed." Sophocles, "Ajax," 827.

Its more usual meaning in the New Testament, however, is to bear or carry. So of the cross (Joh 19:17; Luk 14:27). Here it might very properly be rendered brought, perhaps from the works which were then going on at the temple. See further on 12 6.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ver. 31. “The Jews therefore brought stones again to stone him.”

Οὖν, therefore, by reason of the blasphemy (Joh 10:30); comp. Joh 10:33. Weiss claims that, even understanding the words of Joh 10:30 in the sense which he gives to them, the Jews may have found therein a blasphemy. But, taken in the sense of a common action of God and Jesus, this thought certainly did not go beyond what in their view the Christ might legitimately say. But they had just asked Him whether He was the Christ. What was there in it, then, which could so violently offend them? Πάλιν,again, alludes to Joh 8:59. Only ἦραν, they took up, was used in the former case, while John now says ἐβάστασαν,they brought. Probably they did not have the stones at hand in the porch; it was necessary to go some distance to find them in the court. There was here, no longer a mere demonstration, as in chap. 8, but a serious attempt. The question was of accomplishing at length the act of stoning, which had several times been threatened. Shades of expression like this reveal the eye-witness, whose eyes followed anxiously this progress of hatred.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.