John 10:33

Joh 10:33. Περί, for [‘concerning,’ lit.]) As the Latins say, quâ de causâ. So διά [ποῖον ἔργον], Joh 10:32.

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

Joh 10:33 . The irony is as much in the situation as in the words. The answer is honest enough, blind as it is: Περὶ … Θεόν . “For a praiseworthy work we do not stone Thee, but for blasphemy, and because Thou being a man makest Thyself God.” For περί in this sense cf. Act 26:7 . The καὶ ὅτι does not introduce a second charge, but more specifically defines the blasphemy. On the question whether it was blasphemy to claim to be the Christ see Deu 18:20 , Lev 24:10-17 , and Treffry’s Eternal Sonship . It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. And it is noteworthy that Jesus never manifests indignation when charged with making Himself God; yet were He a mere man no one could view this sin with stronger abhorrence.

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

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 33-42. 1. There can be no doubt that the Jews understood Jesus as claiming to be God. Joh 10:33 clearly proves this. The words of the following verses are to be explained, accordingly, in view of this fact.

2. There are two parts in the answer of Jesus: Joh 10:34-36, and Joh 10:37-38. For the appreciation of the meaning, it must be borne in mind that Jesus enters upon an argument, and does not merely make a new assertion. It is natural, therefore, that what He says should have a progressive character, and should present the claim which He makes through the evidences for it. The claim is that of Joh 10:30, with what it suggests—which they had interpreted in the sense of Joh 10:33 b. In such a progressive argument we might easily expect Him to begin, as He does, with a sort of argumentum ad hominem, founded upon the Old Testament, which they could not reject, and to say, If the O. T. addresses magistrates as gods, in their capacity as God’s ministers in the world, surely there is no blasphemy in the appropriation of this title by one who, in a far more exalted sense, is God’s ambassador—the one whom He has sent into the world to reveal Himself. His position is therefore, He says, exalted enough, even from the point of view of the Divine messenger and teacher revealing the truth—in which capacity they might easily recognize Him—to justify the title. But now He moves forward to the more positive side. What His real position is, they may know by the evidence of the works. If they will not be convinced by His words, let these latter teach them. These will show that there is something more in Him than the highest Divine messenger, that He is even the one who is consecrated and sent into the world to make known the truth—that there is a vital and essential union between Him and the Father (the Father in me and I in the Father), that union which is implied in, and the necessary condition of, unity of power (I and the Father are one, Joh 10:30).

3. In Joh 10:40 Jesus is represented as going again into the region where He is first brought before the reader, in Joh 1:28. The public ministry of Jesus, in a certain sense, closes at this point, and, in accordance with the carefully-arranged plan of the book, it seems not unnatural that the writer should thus bring the narrative again to its starting-point. The introduction of John the Baptist again, at the close, is characteristic of the author. The testimony which John had given before his death produces its fruit when Jesus is drawing near to the time of His own death, and that which had led the writer himself to Jesus, at the beginning, is now represented as bringing many others to a like faith. They believed, as he had done, because of the confirmation which the sight and hearing of Jesus gave to what John had told them. The placing of this testimony and its results at the end of these most striking declarations of Jesus respecting Himself is worthy of notice, as connected with the development of the proof of the truth which the author desires to establish. The insertion of these three verses can hardly be explained, except as they are regarded as having relation to such a plan of the Gospel as has been indicated in these notes—the plan of setting forth progressive testimony and a growing faith which moves along with it; and their presence here, accordingly, gives a new evidence that the author wrote his Gospel under the guiding influence of this plan.

4. The statement here made respecting John corresponds with the declaration of the Prologue with reference to him and with his statements respecting himself in chs. 1 and 3. The σημεῖα of this Gospel are, all of them, σημεῖα in the sense of Joh 20:30-31. John was not the light, but his mission was to bear testimony to the light. The object of his mission and testimony was “that all might believe through him.” This object was realized in the case of the persons here mentioned. The prominence given to John’s testimony in this Gospel is thus easily explained.

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.

for a blasphemy--whose legal punishment was stoning (Lev 24:11-16).

thou, being a man--that is, a man only.

makest thyself God--Twice before they understood Him to advance the same claim, and both times they prepared themselves to avenge what they took to be the insulted honor of God, as here, in the way directed by their law (Joh 5:18; Joh 8:59).

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 33. But for blasphemy] I have elsewhere shown that the original word, βλασφημειν, when applied to men, signifies to speak injuriously of their persons, character, connections, c. but when applied to God it signifies to speak impiously, i.e. contrary to his nature, perfections, the wisdom of his providence, or goodness of his works.

Thou, being a man] That is, only a man - makest thyself God. When Christ said before, Joh 10:30, I and the Father are one, had the Jews understood him (as many called Christians profess to do) as only saying he had a unity of sentiments with the Father, they would not have attempted to treat him for this as a blasphemer; because in this sense Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and all the prophets, were one with God. But what irritated them so much was that they understood him as speaking of a unity of nature. Therefore they say here, thou makest thyself God; which word they understood, not in a figurative, metaphorical, or improper sense, but in the most literal meaning of the term.

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

33. We stone thee not for a good work. Though wicked men carry on open war with God, yet they never wish to sin without some plausible pretense. The consequence is, that when they rage against the Son of God, they are not content with this cruelty, but bring an unprovoked accusation against him, and constitute themselves advocates and defenders of the glory of God. A good conscience must therefore be to us a wall of brass, by which we boldly repel the reproaches and calumnies with which we are assailed. For whatever plausibility may adorn their malice, and whatever reproach they may bring on us for a time, if we fight for the cause of God, he will not refuse to uphold his truth. But as the wicked never want pretences for oppressing the servants of God, and as they have also hardened impudence, so that, even when vanquished, they do not cease to slander, we have need of patience and meekness, to support us to the end.

But for blasphemy. The word blasphemy, which among profane authors denotes generally every kind of reproach, Scripture refers to God, when his majesty is offended and insulted.

Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God. There are two kinds of blasphemy, either when God is deprived of the honor which belongs to him, or when anything unsuitable to his nature, or contrary to his nature, is ascribed to him. They argue therefore that Christ is a blasphemer and a sacrilegious person, because, being a mortal man, he lays claim to Divine honor. And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man. They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles.

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.

(33) The Jews answered him.—Comp for the thoughts of this verse Notes on Joh_10:30 and on Joh_5:18.

For a good work . . . but for blasphemy.—The word rendered “for” is not the causal “on account of,” which we have in the last verse, but “concerning,” the technical form for an indictment. For the Mosaic law concerning blasphemy, see Lev_24:10-16.

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

33. For a good work] The preposition is changed in the Greek; concerning a good work. ‘That is not the subject-matter of our charge?’

and because] ‘And’ is explanatory, shewing wherein the blasphemy consisted: it does not introduce a separate charge.

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.

Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law,.... In the law which was given unto them, of which they boasted, and pretended to understand, and interpret, even in Psa 82:6; for the law includes not only the Pentateuch, but all the books of the Old Testament: it is an observation of one of the Jewish doctors (t), that

"with the wise men of blessed memory, it is found in many places that the word law comprehends the Prophets and the Hagiographa.''

Among which last stands the book of Psalms; and this may be confirmed by a passage out of the Talmud (u); it is asked,

"from whence does the resurrection of the dead appear, , "out of the law?"''

It is answered,

"as it is said in Psa 84:4, "Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will still praise thee, Selah; they do praise thee", it is not said, but "they will praise thee"; from hence is a proof of the resurrection of the dead, "out of the law".''

The same question is again put, and then Isa 52:8 is cited, and the like observation made upon it. Moreover, this is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they introduce another citing a passage of Scripture thus (w), , "is it not written in your law", Deu 4:9, "only take heed to thyself", &c. so here the Scripture follows,

I said, ye are gods? which is spoken to civil magistrates, so called, because of their authority and power; and because they do, in some sort, represent the divine majesty, in the government of nations and kingdoms. Many of the Jewish writers, by "gods", understand "the angels". The Targum paraphrases the words thus:

"I said ye are accounted as angels, as the angels on high, all of you;''

and to this sense some of their commentators interpret it. Jarchi's gloss is, ye are gods; that is, angels; for when I gave the law to you, it was on this account, that the angel of death might not any more rule over you: the note of Aben Ezra is, "and the children of the Most High": as angels; and the sense is, your soul is as the soul of angels: hence the (x) Jew charges Christ with seeking refuge in words, that will not profit, or be any help to him, when he cites these words, showing that magistrates are called gods, when the sense is only, that they are like to the angels in respect of their souls: but let it be observed, that it is not said, "ye are as gods", as in Gen 3:5, but "ye are gods"; not like unto them only, but are in some sense gods; and besides, to say that they are like to angels, with respect to their souls, which come from above, is to say no more of the judges of the earth, than what may be said of every man: to which may be added, that this objector himself owns, that judges are called "gods", as in Exo 22:9; the cause of both parties shall come before "the judges"; and that even the word is used in this sense in this very psalm, from whence these words are cited, Psa 82:1, "he judgeth among" "the gods"; and both Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret this text itself in the same way, and observe, that judges are called gods, when they judge truly and aright: all which is sufficient to justify our Lord in the citation of this passage, and the use he makes of it.

(t) R. Azarias in Meor Enayim, c. 7. fol. 47. 1. (u) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2. (w) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 32. 2. (x) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 51. p. 440, 441.

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

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.

Ver. 33. But for blasphemy] These were holy persecutors, in pretence at least. So Maximinian thought the blood of Christians would be an acceptable sacrifice to his gods. Christianum sanguinem Diis victimam esse gravissimam. (Tertul.) So Francis II of France and Philip II of Spain held the same opinion of the Lutherans in their dominions. Zeal without knowledge is like mettle in a blind horse.

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.

For blasphemy - See the notes at Mat 9:3.

Makest thyself God - See the notes at Joh 5:18. This shows how they understood what he had said.

Makest thyself - Dost claim to be God, or thy language implies this.

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

The Jews answered him, These are not the things we are incensed against thee for; we grant that thou hast done many good works amongst us; these we gratefully acknowledge. But this is that which we are not able to bear, that whereas thou art but a mere man, by thy discourses thou makest thyself equal with God, and so art guilty of

blasphemy; which is committed as well by arrogating to ourselves what is proper to God, as by imputing to God the natural or moral imperfections of the creature; and the blasphemer deserveth to be stoned, according to the law of God. By this it is manifest, that the Jews understood our Saviour, affirming that he and his Father were one, as asserting himself one in essence with his Father, not in will only.

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

33. Being a man—As he truly was.

Makest thyself God—As he truly did. The Jews, says an ancient writer, understood him better than the Arians.

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

The Jews answered him (saying), For a good (excellent, obviously, radiantly so) work we do not stone thee; but for blasphemy; and because thou, being man, makest thyself God. (Peri kalou ergou and peri blasfhmiav contrast with the causal dia poion of the previous verse. This preposition was used for formal indictments of offence before the tribunals.) The Jews felt the force of this indignant reproach, and would not admit that his Divine and goodly work was without meaning to them. It was, however, a melancholy reality that his beneficent work had roused their malice into fiercer activity, but they credit themselves with a higher and a doctrinal motive and with a jealousy for the honor of God. They charge him with blasphemy, and the charge is reiterated before Pilate. (Joh_19:7) The Jews were in one sense right. He had de-dared his essential unity with the Father; he had "made himself, represented himself, (Joh_8:53 Joh_19:7) as equal with God." In the opinion of his hearers, he conveyed the idea that he possessed and was wielding Divine powers. He was making himself to be God. "Good works" by the score were no vindication of one who dishonored the Name of God by claiming equality with him.

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

33. For blasphemy. Because he said he and the Father were one.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

33. περὶ κ. ἔρ. Concerning a good work: ‘That is not the subject-matter of our charge.’ Comp. Joh 8:46, Joh 16:8; 1Jn 2:2.

καὶ ὃτι. Καί is epexegetic, explaining wherein the blasphemy consisted: it does not introduce a second charge. see on Joh 8:53.

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.

33.] θεόν = ἴσον τῷ θ., ch. 5:18.

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

33. ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. The rec. adds λέγοντες, but this is rightly omitted by אABLWΘ ἀπεκρίθη followed by the pres. part. λέγων is very rare in Jn. (see on 1:26), who prefers to use two co-ordinate verbs, ἀπεκρ. καὶ εἶπεν (see on 1:50).

The Jewish opponents of Jesus give Him the answer that He anticipated. They had set about stoning Him, because death by stoning was the appointed penalty for blasphemy (Lev 24:16; cf. 1Ki 21:10, 1Ki 21:13), and His language was, in their ears, blasphemous, “making Himself God,” as they said. Cf. 5:18, and 19:7 below, where the charge against Him was more accurately formulated, ἑαυτὸν υἱὸν θεοῦ ἐποίησεν.

περὶ βλασφημίας, “because of blasphemy”; cf. Act 26:7 περὶ ἧς ἐλπίδος ἐγκαλοῦμαι, where περί is used in the same way. The word βλασφημία occurs in Jn. only in this passage.

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

Saying. Omit.

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