John 10:35

If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came . . . Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest--The whole force of this reasoning, which has been but in part seized by the commentators, lies in what is said of the two parties compared. The comparison of Himself with mere men, divinely commissioned, is intended to show (as NEANDER well expresses it) that the idea of a communication of the Divine Majesty to human nature was by no means foreign to the revelations of the Old Testament; but there is also a contrast between Himself and all merely human representatives of God--the one "sanctified by the Father and sent into the world"; the other, "to whom the word of God (merely) came," which is expressly designed to prevent His being massed up with them as only one of many human officials of God. It is never said of Christ that "the word of the Lord came to Him"; whereas this is the well-known formula by which the divine commission, even to the highest of mere men, is expressed, as John the Baptist (Luk 3:2). The reason is that given by the Baptist himself (see on Joh 3:31). The contrast is between those "to whom the word of God came"--men of the earth, earthy, who were merely privileged to get a divine message to utter (if prophets), or a divine office to discharge (if judges)--and "Him whom (not being of the earth at all) the Father sanctified (or set apart), and sent into the world," an expression never used of any merely human messenger of God, and used only of Himself.

because, I said, I am the Son of God--It is worthy of special notice that our Lord had not said, in so many words, that He was the Son of God, on this occasion. But He had said what beyond doubt amounted to it--namely, that He gave His sheep eternal life, and none could pluck them out of His hand; that He had got them from His Father, in whose hands, though given to Him, they still remained, and out of whose hand none could pluck them; and that they were the indefeasible property of both, inasmuch as "He and His Father were one." Our Lord considers all this as just saying of Himself, "I am the Son of God"--one nature with Him, yet mysteriously of Him. The parenthesis (Joh 10:35), "and the Scripture cannot be broken," referring to the terms used of magistrates in the eighty-second Psalm, has an important bearing on the authority of the living oracles. "The Scripture, as the expressed will of the unchangeable God, is itself unchangeable and indissoluble" [OLSHAUSEN]. (Compare Mat 5:17).

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

Joh 10:35. Ἐκείνους) them, weak creatures, nay, even deserving of the censure contained in this very psalm.—εἶπε, called) God called them, professing in the psalm that it is He who speaks, [Joh 10:1, God standeth in the congregation, etc.] Whence it is that immediately after the expression, the word of God, is used, ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ: comp. 1Ki 18:31, “The sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the Lord came, saying, Israel shall be thy name.”—πρὸς οὕς, unto whom) The reason is herein expressed, why they are called gods, and why in an inferior sense; comp. Mar 12:12, πρός, in reference to, “They knew that He spake the parable in reference to them.” Others interpret the πρός, against [Engl. Vers. of Mar 12:12].—ὁ λόγος, the word) And indeed the word in that psalm, which partly calls them gods, partly censures the same persons.—καὶ οὐ, and not) The Scripture cannot be broken, even in its smallest particular. A most firmly-established axiom. The appellation, gods, though not strictly used, cannot be broken, once that it has been set down in Scripture.

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

Void and of none effect.

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

Verse 35. Unto whom the word of God came] Bishop Pearce thinks that "the word λογος, here, is put for λογος κρισεως, the word or matter of judgment, as in 2Ch 19:6, where Jehoshaphat, setting up judges in the land of Judah, says: Take heed what ye do: judge not for men, but for the Lord, who is with you in judgment - λογοι της κρισεως, in the words or matters of judgment, - SEPT., which is nearly according to the Hebrew to בדבר משפט bedebar mishpat, in the word or matter of judgment. In De 1:17, when a charge is given to the judges that they should not be afraid of the face of man, this reason is given: for the judgment is God's. Hence it appears probable that λογος is here used for λογος κρισεως: and it is called λογος Θεου, because it is the judgment that properly belongs to God, and which they who give it on earth give only as acting in the stead of God. A way of speaking very like to this is found in Heb 4:13, where the writer says, προς ὁν ἡμιν ὁ λογος, with whom we have to do, i.e. by whom we are to be judged."

But the words λογος Θεου may be here understood for the order, commission, or command of God; and so it properly signifies, Lu 3:2; and in this sense it is found often employed in the Old Testament. When it is there said that the word of the Lord came, c., it means, God gave an order, commission, c., to such a person, to declare or do such and such things.

And the scripture cannot be broken] αυθηναι, dissolved, rendered of none effect, i.e. it cannot be gainsayed or set aside every man must believe this, because it is the declaration of God. If those were termed gods who were only earthly magistrates, fallible mortals, and had no particular influence of the Divine Spirit and that they are termed gods is evident from that scripture which cannot be gainsayed; what greater reason then have I to say, I am the Son of God, and one with God, when, as Messiah, I have been consecrated, sent into the world, to instruct and save men; and when, as God, I have wrought miracles which could be performed by no power less than that of omnipotence?

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

35. To whom the word of God was addressed. For Christ means that they were authorized by an undoubted command of God. Hence we infer that empires did not spring up at random, nor by the mistakes of men, but that they were appointed by the will of God, because he wishes that political order should exist among men, and that we should be governed by usages and laws. For this reason Paul says, that all who

resist the power are rebels against God, because there is no power but what is ordained by God, (Romans 13:1, 2.)

It will, perhaps, be objected, that other callings also are from God, and are approved by him, and yet that we do not, on that account, call farmers, or cowherds, or cobblers, gods I reply, this is not a general declaration, that all who have been called by God to any particular way of living are called gods; but Christ speaks of kings, whom God has raised to a more elevated station, that they may rule and govern. In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority. Under the term Law, Christ includes the whole doctrine by which God governed his ancient Church; for since the prophets were only expounders of the Law, the Psalms are justly regarded as an appendage to the Law. That the Scripture cannot be broken means, that the doctrine of Scripture is inviolable.

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.

(35) If he called them gods.—The argument is another example of Hillel’s famous First Canon of Interpretation—that the greater may be inferred from the less. The pronoun “he” (He) refers probably to God (see Note on Joh_10:34), or the rendering may be “it,” as referring to “law”—i.e., the Psalm.

Unto whom the word of God came—i.e., the word declaring “Ye are gods,” and pointing back to the time indicated by “I said,” when each one was set apart to be a representative of God, and in that he had His authority to bear also His name.

The scripture cannot be broken.—More literally, cannot be loosened. Comp. Notes on Mat_5:18-19, and for the word rendered “broken” see also in this Gospel Joh_5:18; Joh_7:23.

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

35. If he called them gods] More probably, If it called them gods, viz. the Law. ‘Them’ is left unexplained; a Jewish audience would at once know who were meant. But how incredible that any but a Jew should think of such an argument, or put it in this brief way! These last eight verses alone are sufficient to discredit the theory that this Gospel is the work of Greek Gnostic in the second century.

the word of God] Practically the same as ‘the Scripture;’ i.e. the word of God in these passages of Scripture. The Word in the theological sense for the Son is not meant: this term appears nowhere in the narrative part of S. John’s Gospel. But of course it was through the Word, not yet incarnate, that God revealed His will to His people.

cannot be broken] Literally, ‘cannot be undone’ or ‘unloosed.’ The same word is rendered ‘unloose’ (Joh_1:27), ‘destroy’ (Joh_2:19), ‘break’ (Joh_5:18 and Joh_7:23), ‘loose’ (Joh_11:44). Joh_1:27 and Joh_11:44 are literal, of actual unbinding; the others are figurative, of dissolution or unbinding as a form of destruction. Here either metaphor, dissolution or unbinding, would be appropriate; either, ‘cannot be explained away, made to mean nothing;’ or, ‘cannot be deprived of its binding authority.’ The latter seems better. The clause depends upon ‘if,’ and is not parenthetical; ‘if the Scripture cannot be broken.’ As in Joh_2:22, Joh_17:12, Joh_20:9, ‘the Scripture’ (singular) probably means a definite passage. Comp. Joh_7:38; Joh_7:42, Joh_13:18, Joh_17:12, Joh_19:24; Joh_19:28; Joh_19:36-37. Scripture as a whole is called ‘the Scriptures’ (plural); Joh_5:39.

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.

Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified,.... Not by making his human nature pure and holy, and free from all sin, and by bestowing the holy Spirit on him without measure, though both true; but these were upon, or after his mission into the world; whereas sanctification here, designs something previous to that, and respects the eternal separation of him to his office, as Mediator, in the counsel, purposes, and decrees of God, and in the covenant of his grace, being pre-ordained thereunto, before the foundation of the world; which supposes his eternal existence as a divine person, and tacitly proves his true and proper deity:

and sent into the world; in human nature, to obtain eternal redemption and salvation his people: to save them from sin, Satan, the world, law, hell and death, which none but God could do:

thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God; for what he had said in Joh 10:30 is equivalent to it; and in it he was rightly understood by the Jews, and what he here and afterwards says confirms it: the argument is what the Jews call , "from the lesser to the greater", and stands thus; that if mere frail mortal men, and some of them wicked men, being made rulers and judges in the earth are called gods, by God himself, to whom the word of God came in time, and constituted them gods, or governors, but for a time; and this is a fact stands recorded in Scripture, which cannot be denied or disproved, then surely it cannot be blasphemy in Christ, to assert himself to be the Son of God, who existed as a divine person from all eternity; and was so early set apart to the office of prophet, priest, and king; and in the fulness of time was sent into this world, to be the author of eternal salvation to the sons of men.

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

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Ver. 35. Unto whom the word of God came] That have their authority from God, whose substitutes and viceregents princes are, and of whom they have their patent. With what face then can the schoolmen defend Thomas Aquinas in that paradox, Dominium et praelatio introducta sunt ex iure humane? God and the bringing in for preference are from man’s law?

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.

If God dignified those men (and many of them were also vile and sinful men) with the title of gods, because they had a commission to govern people according to the law of God; and none must contradict what God hath said in his word; there can be no falsehood in the revelation of any part of the Divine will.

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

35. Unto whom the word of God came—Unto whom these words of the psalm were by God addressed.

Broken—Made void, deprived of authority. The Lord’s argument assumed the absolute truth of Scripture, and their changeless, indestructible authority. His “theory of inspiration” is this: Whatever is found in Scripture is, in its true meaning, conclusive in religious argument.

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

If he (the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Lawgiver, the subject is left indefinite) called them gods (elohim), to whom the Word of God came the personal "Word" need not be excluded here; the "Word of God"was the Divine agency by which prophets spoke and psalmists sangand the Scripture (grafh is singular, and has reference, not to all the grafai , but to this one word) cannot he broken; loosed, destroyed. A fine testimony to the confidence which our Lord exercised in the Holy Scripture. He was accustomed to educe principles of life from its inward structure, from its concealed framework, from its underlying verities. The very method adopted by Jesus on this occasion revealed the fact that both he and his biographer were born Jews. These tyrannical judges were "to die like men," yet, since "the Word of God came to them," there was a sense in which even they, without blasphemous assumptions, might receive the title of elohim.

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

If he (God) called them gods unto whom the word of God came, (that is, to whom God was then speaking,) and the Scripture cannot be broken - That is, nothing which is written therein can be censured or rejected.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

35. εἰ ἐκ. εἶ. θ. Probably, If it called them gods, viz. the Law. ‘Them’ is left unexplained; a Jewish audience would at once know who were meant. But how incredible that any but a Jew should think of such an argument, or put it in this brief way! These last eight verses alone are sufficient to discredit the theory that this Gospel is the work of a Greek Gnostic in the second century.

ὁ λόγος τ. θ. Practically the same as ‘the Scripture;’ i.e. the word of God in these passages of Scripture. The Word in the theological sense for the Son is not meant: this term appears nowhere in the narrative part of S. John’s Gospel. But of course it was through the Word, not yet incarnate, that God revealed His will to His people.

οὐ δ. λυθῆναι. Literally, ‘cannot be undone’ or ‘unloosed.’ The same word is rendered ‘unloose’ (Joh 1:27), ‘destroy’ (Joh 2:19; 1Jn 3:8), ‘break’ (Joh 5:18 and Joh 7:23), ‘loose’ (Joh 11:44). Joh 1:27 and Joh 11:44 are literal, of actual unbinding; the others are figurative, of dissolution or unbinding as a form of destruction. Here either metaphor, dissolution or unbinding, would be appropriate; either, ‘cannot be explained away, made to mean nothing;’ or, ‘cannot be deprived of its binding authority.’ The latter seems better. The clause depends upon ‘if,’ and is not parenthetical; ‘if the Scripture cannot be broken.’ As in Joh 2:22, Joh 17:12, Joh 20:9, ἡ γραφή probably means a definite passage. Comp. Joh 7:38; Joh 7:42, Joh 13:18, Joh 17:12, Joh 19:24; Joh 19:28; Joh 19:36-37. Scripture as a whole is called αἱ γραφαί; Joh 5:39.

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.

35.] πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγ. τ. θεοῦ ἐγ., to whom God (in those passages) spoke. We can hardly build on this passage, as Luthardt has done, a theory as to the distinction between those to whom ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ came merely in utterance, and those to whom He came in Person. See below on ver. 36.

The expression, καὶ οὐ δύν. λυθ. ἡ γρ. (which is not a parenthesis, but constructionally part of the sentence, depending on εἰ), implies, ‘and if you cannot explain this expression away,—if it cannot mean nothing,—for it rests on the testimony of God’s word,’ …

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

35. εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεούς, “if then the Law (i.e. the Scripture) called them gods,” πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο, “to whom the message of God came,” sc. at the moment of their appointment to high office, which was a Divine call. So it was said of Jeremiah ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν (Jer 1:2), and of John the Baptist ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάνην (Luk 3:2); and it is implied here that the same words are applicable to the judge who is invested with authority to execute justice in God’s name. The call of circumstance may often be truly a “word of God” to the man to whom it comes.

καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή. For λύειν used of “breaking” a law, see on 5:18. Here we should render “the Scripture cannot be set at naught.” The opposite of setting the Scripture at naught or “destroying” it is the “fulfilling” of it. See Mat 5:17. The meaning of this parenthesis is that the words of Psa 82:6 are full of permanent significance and must not be ignored. See Introd., p. clii.

ἡ γραφή, as always in Jn., signifies the actual passage of the O.T. which is cited or indicated, and not the whole body of the Hebrew Scriptures. See on 2:22.

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

The Scripture [η γραφη] . The passage of scripture. See on Joh 2:22; Joh 5:47.

Broken [λυθηναι] . Literally, loosened. Wyc., undone. The word is characteristic of John. He uses it of the destruction of the temple (ii. 19); the breaking of the Sabbath (v. 18); the violation of the law (vii. 23); the destruction of Satan 's works (1Jo 3:8), besides elsewhere in the physical sense.

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