Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:31
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31. Then the Jews took up stonesagain to stone Himand for precisely the same thing as before(Joh 8:58; Joh 8:59).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. As they had done before, [See comments on Joh 8:59];
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Took up stones again ( ). First aorist active indicative of , old verb to pick up, to carry (Joh 12:6), to bear (Ga 6:5). The refers to Joh 8:59 where was used. They wanted to kill him also when he made himself equal to God in 5:18. Perhaps here means “they fetched stones from a distance.”
To stone him ( ). Final clause with and the first aorist active subjunctive of , late verb (Aristotle, Polybius) from (stone, small, Mt 4:6, or large, Mt 28:2), in John 10:31-33; John 11:8; Acts 5:26; Acts 14:19; 2Cor 11:25; Heb 11:37, but not in the Synoptics. It means to pelt with stones, to overwhelm with stones.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Took up – again [ – ] . 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 [] 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.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then the Jews took up stones again,” (ebastasan palin lithous hoi loudaioi) “The Jews again lifted (picked up) stones,” as they had planned, connived, and threatened to do before, repeatedly, fulfilling certain prophecies regarding their treatment of Him, Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18; Joh 8:59; Joh 11:8; Psa 2:2.
2) “To stone him.” (hina lithasosin auton) “In order that they might stone him,” had picked up and carried stones in their hands, large pieces of marble bearing them with malice and premeditated intent to slay Him, shortly following the event of Joh 8:59.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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, (Deu 13:5.)
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
‘The Judaisers carried stones to stone him.’
Some of the Judaisers did recognise what He meant and were inflamed. To then this was blasphemy! Whatever their motives at the beginning they now lost control, for they went over to a nearby pile of rocks and picked up rocks, carrying them over in order to stone Him. This was not, however, the way in which He ought to die, so He sought to calm the atmosphere.
Stones would be available in the Temple area because building works were still in process. The verb suggests they went across to where these were going on and brought the stones back with them. Or it is even possible that they already carried them ready for this moment which they had precipitated.
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.
Joh 10:31-33. Then the Jews took up stones As a full proof in what sense our Lord’s hearers understood him, we find that they took up stones, and were going to kill him, in obedience, as they supposed, to the law, Lev 24:14 which ordered the blasphemer to be stoned. Our Lord remonstrates against this violent proceeding in terms the most striking and pathetic. “In confirmation of my mission from my Father, I have worked many miracles, all of a beneficent kind, and most becoming the perfection of him who sent me. I have fed the hungry, I have healed the lame, I have cured the sick, I have given sight to the blind, I have cast out devils, I have raised the dead; for which of all these are ye going to stone me?”But they, perverse, and never to be persuaded, reply, “We are going to punish thee with death for no good work, but for blasphemy;for though thou art a man, weak and mortal as we ourselves are, thou arrogantly assumest to thyself the power and majesty of God, and by laying claim to the incommunicable attributes of the Deity, makest thyself God.” This they took to be the plain meaning of his assertion, that He and the Father were one, Joh 10:30.
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 Christ’s reply was powerful enough to restrain them.
] sustulerunt (Vulgate), (Nonnus) they lifted up stones , with the intention of throwing them at Him. The word is more characteristic than in Joh 8:59 , though on account of the two must have the same import; hence the interpretation: they fetched (Hengstenberg, Godet, and others), is less exact. Compare Hom. Od . . 594; Soph. Aj . 814; Polyb. 15. 26. 3.
] Joh 8:59 .
] not specially: works of love (Kuinoel, B. Crusius), but in general: praeclara opera, distinguished works. [66]
] have I showed you , Joh 5:20 . Comp. Joh 2:18 ; Psa 78:11 ; Plat. Crat . p. 430 E: .
] from my Father , who is in me, and from whom, therefore, they go out through me. Compare Joh 10:37-38 .
, 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? ( , 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.
. ] 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. 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.”
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father: for which of those works do ye stone me? (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 (34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (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? (37) If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. (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. (39) Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand; (40) And went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized: and there he abode. (41) And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle; but all things that John spake of this man were true. (42) And many believed on him there.
I would appeal to the common sense of mankind, whether any unprejudiced person upon earth can be found, who would say, that the Jews did not consider what Christ had just said as claiming an equality with God? And, I would demand yet further, is it not as plain as words can make it, that upon these principles, and according to their laws, they took up stones to stone him for what they supposed to be blasphemy? And I appeal, to the same common sense of mankind, whether any form of words could be used by Christ more firm, or decided, in proof of his claims to Godhead, than Jesus hath here adopted. And, under these impressions, what but the most hardened blindness, could hesitate to acknowledge him, what Jehovah had all along acknowledged him, the Man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts. Zec 13:7 .
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.)
31. ] i.e. as having spoken blasphemy, Lev 24:10 ff.
“ , sustulerunt (Vulg.) they lifted up in the air , in act to throw at him. It is more than , ch. Joh 8:59 . Cf. Hom. Od. . 594 ( ), Polyb. 15:26. 3 ( ).” Meyer.
Joh 10:31 . . In chap. Joh 8:59 , , so now once more, , they lifted stones to stone Him.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 10:31-39
31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.
Joh 10:31 This verse relates to Jesus’ statement in Joh 10:30. Jesus answers their charges in a very unusual rabbinical argument. It basically is a word play on Elohim, which is the OT term for God (cf. Genesis 1), but in form is plural and often was used of both angels and human leaders (judges). See SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY at Joh 6:20.
Joh 10:32 The good (kalos) shepherd does good (kalos) works from the Father.
Joh 10:33 “for blasphemy” Jesus knew that they correctly understood His claim of oneness with the Father.
Joh 10:34 “in your Law” Jesus quotes from the Psalms but calls it “the Law” (i.e., Torah means “teachings,” cf. Joh 12:34; Joh 15:25; Rom 3:9-19). The term Law usually referred to the writings of Moses (Torah), Genesis-Deuteronomy. This shows the wider use of the term to cover the whole OT.
“you are gods” Jesus used a quote from Psa 82:6. It used elohim to refer to human judges (see Elohim in Special Topic at Joh 6:20). These judges (though wicked) are called “sons of the Most High.” These Jews were attacking Jesus because although He was a man He claimed to be: (1) the Son of God and (2) one with God. Yet other men (cf. Exo 4:16; Exo 7:1; Exo 22:8-9; Psa 82:6; Psa 138:1) were called “gods.”
Jesus’ rabbinical argument seems to follow this line: the Scriptures are true, men are called elohim, therefore, why do you call Me a blasphemer for asserting that I am the Son of God? The term Elohim is plural in Hebrew but translated singular and used a singular verb when referring to the OT Deity. See SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY at Joh 6:20. This may be a typical Johannine word play: (1) a term that has two connotations and (2) a Greek question that expects a “yes” answer.
Joh 10:35 “(and the Scripture cannot be broken)” John often comments on Jesus’ dialogues. It is uncertain whether this is a statement of Jesus or John. However, since both are equally inspired, it does not matter. The thrust of the quote is the trustworthiness of Scripture. Jesus and the Apostles viewed the OT and their interpretations of it as the very words of God (cf. Mat 5:17-19; 1Co 2:9-13; 1Th 2:13; 2Ti 3:16; 1Pe 1:23-25; 2Pe 1:20-21; 2Pe 3:15-16).
Bishop H. C. G. Moule in The Life of Bishop Moule says,
“He [Christ] absolutely trusted the Bible, and, though there are in it things inexplicable and intricate that have puzzled me so much, I am going, not in a blind sense, but reverently to trust the Book because of Him” (p. 138).
Joh 10:36 In this verse Jesus claims that the Father chose (or “consecrated” or “sanctified”) Him and sent Him (as Messiah). He surely then has the right to be called “son of God.” As the judges of Israel represented God (cf. Psa 82:6), He represents the Father in word and deed. See Special Topic: Send (Apostell) at Joh 5:24.
Joh 10:37 This is exactly what Joh 10:19-21 are saying. Jesus’ miracles reflected the activity of God.
Joh 10:37-38 “If. . .if” These are first class conditional sentences. Jesus did the works of the Father. If so, then they should believe in Him, being confident that He and the Father are one (cf. Joh 10:30; Joh 10:38). See Special Topic: Abiding in 1Jn 2:10.
Joh 10:39 This is one of several times that Jesus eluded those who tried to hurt Him (cf. Luk 4:29-30; Joh 8:59). It is uncertain whether these escapes were due to (1) a miraculous event or (2) Jesus’ physical likeness to everyone else, which allowed Him to melt into the crowd.
again. See Joh 8:59.
to. Greek hina, as in Joh 10:10.
31.] i.e. as having spoken blasphemy, Lev 24:10 ff.
, sustulerunt (Vulg.)-they lifted up in the air, in act to throw at him. It is more than , ch. Joh 8:59. Cf. Hom. Od. . 594 ( ), Polyb. 15:26. 3 ( ). Meyer.
Joh 10:31. , they bare) They were therefore large pieces of rock.
Joh 10:31
Joh 10:31
The Jews took up stones again to stone him.-To make himself one with God was regarded by the Jews as blasphemy. And blasphemy was to be punished by death by stoning. (Lev 24:14-16).
the Works of the Father
Joh 10:31-42
In the strongest terms known to the Jews, our Lord insisted on His oneness with God; and they understood His claims, threatening Him with the penalty of blasphemy. This quotation from Psa 82:6 was originally addressed to magistrates, and our Lord argued that if unjust judges were described by this phrase, because they exercised the divine prerogative of judgment, surely His opponents had no right to stone Him, when, as the Sent of God and sanctioned by Gods witness in His works, He spoke of Himself as the Fathers equal and fellow. See Zec 13:7; and Php 2:6. But their vindictive hate would brook no parley; and as His hour was not yet come, Jesus deemed it better to go beyond Jordan into hiding, until the minute-hand should reach the exact figure on the dial.
There was a special reason why He was attracted to the region beyond Jordan. It was the place of Johns early appearance. That ground had been black with crowds, those waters had witnessed countless baptisms. All that wonderful past trooped back to memory, and the people remembered Johns word as they saw in Christ their precise fulfillment. We may work no miracle, but let us speak true words about Jesus Christ.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 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. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 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. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there.
The real object, as we have seen before in the writing of this gospel, is that men might believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that believing they might have life through His name. So we have had one incident after another, all intended to make clear the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and His eternal relationship to the Father as the only begotten Son, who was ever one with the Father and the Spirit, both as to eternity of being and as to power and authority, wisdom, love, and grace.
We closed our previous chapter with the declaration of our Savior, I and my Father are one (Joh 10:30). Now whatever men today may understand that to mean, there can be no question that those to whom Jesus spoke understood that He was affirming definite equality with God. That was why they took up stones again to stone Him. In their eyes He was a blasphemer.
May I put it this way to you: if the Lord Jesus Christ is not God-God manifested in the flesh-then they were correct. If He is not truly God, He must have been a blasphemer, because He used language that no one but God should use. He accepted worship that should be received by no one but God. The law said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (Mat 4:10), and the Lord Jesus allowed His disciples to worship Him. Therefore, He took to Himself that which rightly belongs to God. Now He was either God manifest in the flesh or else a gross deceiver.
Some take another view of it and say He was a paranoiac who imagined He was divine while just a human being like others. But there was nothing about the behavior and the words of our Lord Jesus Christ to indicate one of unbalanced mind. His life was too pure, His words too wonderful, to allow us to accept that view for a moment, and we certainly cannot think of such a holy person as a deceiver. Good men do not say that which is untrue, normally. He claimed over and over again to be the Son of the Father-I and my Father are one.
It was because of this declaration that His enemies, in accordance with the law of Moses, which commanded that the blasphemer was to be stoned to death, took up stones to stone Him. He calmly said to them: Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (Joh 10:32). His works had manifested the truth of what He said of Himself. They had always been for the interest and good of mankind. What had He done that they should stone Him?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy (v. 33a). What was the blasphemy? Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (v. 33b). They said, You are a man and declare yourself to be God, therefore, you are a blasphemer. Well, the truth is that He was Man in all perfection, but He was also God-as truly Man as though He had never been God and as truly God as though He had never become Man.
But now the Lord may seem to us to beg the question when He says, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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? (vv. 34-36).
What is the Lord referring to here? In Psa 82:6, in addressing the judges of the people who stood in the place of God to act for Him, we read these words, I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. It says, in the first verse of that psalm, God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. What does He mean by this? God is the Judge over all, but He appointed in Israel men who were to represent Him. The people were to bring their questions and grievances to them and they were to judge in accordance with the Word. I have said, Ye are gods. That is, they were there to act for God. Today all judges do not act for God. But the thought is that these were to be righteous judges, and as such they were designated gods. This was in their Bibles, and they never thought of that expression as blasphemy.
Now why not inquire more definitely as to what the Lord Jesus meant when He said, I and my Father are one? It was necessary to do this in order to understand it aright, and so the Lord Jesus practically says, Why not consider the works that I do? Why not study your own Bibles and see if the claims that I make are not borne out by the works that I perform and by the Scriptures? But they were not willing to do this. They jumped at conclusions, as people so often do. We have our preconceived notions and are not willing to subject our thoughts to the declarations of the Word of God. We stress our own views and ideas and reject those of the Lord.
Thus they were ready to call Him a blasphemer, whose one object in life was the glory of the Father. But now observe, this passage not only sets forth the Deity of the Lord Jesus and his equality with the Father, but it emphasizes the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. We can be very grateful indeed to the Jews for having preserved for us the Bible. All the Old Testament was preserved by them, handed down through the centuries in manuscript form, translated into the Greek tongue later, and that by Jewish scribes, so that all the Old Testament Scriptures have come to us through the people of Israel. We will never be able to pay our debt to the Jews for that.
The Old Testament we have today is the Old Testament that Jesus had. He had it in both Greek and Hebrew, and He read it in both of these versions, for He quoted from them both in His ministry here on earth, sometimes from the Hebrew and, at other times, from the Greek text. There were flaws in that translation, but whenever He could He used that translation, because it was in the hands of the common people.
Notice what He says, The scripture cannot be broken. What rest that gives to heart and mind in these days when there are so many voices regarding the question of the inspiration of our Bible! They tell us that many of the books of the Old Testament have been discredited. The Lord Jesus says the Scripture cannot be broken and when He used that term scripture, He was using it as the Jews of His day used it. They applied it to the books of their Old Testament, which were the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. The whole volume was called Scripture. Jesus says, The scripture cannot be broken. In other words, He authenticated the whole of the Old Testament.
This comes out very clearly as you go through the four Gospels, and see how Jesus puts His imprimatur on every part of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms. If confused by evolutionary theories of creation and inclined to believe that men are only specialized brutes who have come up through the ages from a beast ancestry, we find that Jesus says, From the beginning (of the creation) God made them male and female (Mar 10:6, parentheses in original). Thus our Lord put His seal upon the doctrine of the special creation of man. He made them at the beginning, male and female. He also put His authorization upon the marriage relationship. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and [shall] cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh (vv. 7-8). This is the divine institution of marriage. So we have the Lord Jesus Christ Himself authenticating both special creation and the marriage relationship.
Then there are so many other things in the Old Testament to which modern teachers object. Is it true that there was once a great flood and that one family alone was saved out of that deluge? You turn to your New Testament and read, For as [it was] in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be (Mat 24:38-39). I have no question about the universality of the flood in the face of words like these. Jesus knew, because He was God manifest in the flesh.
And so with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Again the Lord says, Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed (Luk 17:28-30).
Scholars raise questions as to who wrote the first books of our Bible, Genesis to Deuteronomy, and they are willing to admit almost anybody but Moses as their authors, and yet the Lord Jesus Christ says, Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me (Joh 5:46). And He is speaking of the Law, the Law was composed of those five books, and He says that Moses wrote them.
Was there ever such a man as Abraham? Was he but the imaginary character of a Hebrew myth? Or did he actually exist? Was he the father of the faithful, as Moses said? Jesus answers: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad (8:56). What did He mean? He was referring to that promise God gave to Abraham, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen 22:18; Gen 26:4). Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness (Rom 4:3). In the same way Jesus authenticates the story of Jonah and the repentance of Nineveh.
I confess I cannot understand how any man can profess to be a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, recognize His true Deity, and yet spurn any portion of His testimony, for we have the blessed Lord Himself declaring that the Scripture cannot be broken.
And then notice verse 36: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest? The Father sanctified the Son and sent Him into the world. What does that tell us? It tells us that our Lord Jesus Christ did not become the Son when He was born of the Virgin Mary here on earth. It tells us He was the Son of the Father in the ineffable glory before He came down here at all. He was one of the Holy Trinity and the Father sanctified the Son and sent Him into the world.
What does that word sanctify mean? It really means to set apart. And so the Father set the Son apart and sent Him into the world that He might become the propitiation for our sin. This is the glorious truth here fully unfolded. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him (1Jn 4:9). He did not become the Son after He came to earth, but the Father sent the Son. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (v. 10). No wonder the apostle adds, Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another (v. 11). The supreme example of the love of God is this: God sent His Son into the world. He turned His back on heavens glory to be born a child here on earth, to grow up to manhood, living a holy, spotless life, and at last to go to Calvarys cross to offer Himself for our redemption. Is it blasphemy to believe this? On the contrary, it is an insult to God to deny it.
Jesus says, 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? He told them to consider His works. Do not these accredit Him? If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not.
So we throw that challenge out today. If you have any doubt as to whether He was the eternal Son of God, read the record. See what He did when He was here. Can you explain His works in any other way? If you can, then you must reject Him. But if His works accredit Him, then be reasonable and accept Him.
If people would only read the Bible thoughtfully and face its testimony honestly, oh, how many would be delivered from the snare of unbelief]
So Jesus says, If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 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 (vv. 37-38). But, alas, though He was so tender and faithful, those who listened to Him were not willing to make the test.
Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand (v. 39). The hour had not come that He was to die, and they could not put Him to death, so He went away beyond Jordan where John had baptized Him. And there He abode. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true (vv. 40-41).
And many believed on him there (v. 42). To believe on Him is to put your trust in Him. I wonder if all who read this have really believed on Him. Have you put your trust in Him? Oh, read the record for yourselves. Face the testimony honestly. If the Spirit of God reveals to you that Jesus is indeed the Son of the living God, then receive Him as your Savior and confess Him openly before men.
O for a thousand tongues to sing
My great Redeemers praise,
The glories of my God and King,
The triumphs of His grace!
Joh 5:18, Joh 8:59, Joh 11:8, Exo 17:4, 1Sa 30:6, Mat 21:35, Mat 23:35, Act 7:52, Act 7:58, Act 7:59
Reciprocal: Lev 24:14 – let all the Mar 14:61 – the Son Mar 14:64 – General Joh 7:19 – Why Joh 7:30 – they Joh 8:37 – but Joh 10:39 – General Joh 15:20 – word Joh 18:32 – the saying Heb 11:37 – stoned Heb 12:3 – contradiction
1
At every climax of the arguments of Jesus, the conclusion was so unanswerable that the Jews were enraged. Instead of acting in a fair manner and accepting the teaching, they would threaten him with violence.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[Then the Jews took up stones again.] The blasphemer by judicial process of the Sanhedrim was to be stoned; which process they would imitate here without judgment.
“These are the criminals that must be stoned; he that lieth with his own mother, or with the wife of his father. He that blasphemes or commits idolatry.” Now, however, the Rabbins differed in the definition of blasphemy or a blasphemer, yet this all of them agreed in, as unquestionable blasphemy, that which denies the foundation. This they firmly believed Jesus did, and none could persuade them to the contrary, when he affirmed, “I and my Father are one.” A miserable besotted nation, who, above all persons or things, wished and looked for the Messiah, and yet was perfectly ignorant what kind of a Messiah he should be!
We should observe, in these verses, the extreme wickedness of human nature. The unbelieving Jews at Jerusalem were neither moved by our Lord’s miracles nor by His preaching. They were determined not to receive Him as their Messiah. Once more it is written that “they took up stones to stone Him.”
Our Lord had done the Jews no injury. He was no robber, murderer, or rebel against the law of the land. He was one whose whole life was love, and who “went about doing good.” (Act 10:38.) There was no fault or inconsistency in His character. There was no crime that could be laid to His charge. So perfect and spotless a Being had never walked on the face of this earth. But yet the Jews hated Him, and thirsted for His blood. How true are the words of Scripture: “They hated Him without a cause.” (Joh 15:25. Psa 35:19; Psa 69:4.) How just the remark of an old divine: “Unconverted men would kill God Himself if they could only get at Him.”
The true Christian has surely no right to wonder if he meets with the same kind of treatment as our blessed Lord. In fact, the more like he is to his Master, and the more holy and spiritual his life, the more probable is it that he will have to endure hatred and persecution. Let him not suppose that any degree of consistency will deliver him from this cross. It is not his faults, but his graces, which call forth the enmity of men. The world hates to see anything of God’s image. The children of the world are vexed and pricked in conscience when they see others better than themselves. Why did Cain hate his brother Abel, and slay him? “Because,” says John, “his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” (1Jn 3:12.) Why did the Jews hate Christ? Because He exposed their sins and false doctrines; and they knew in their own hearts that he was right and they were wrong. “The world,” said our Lord, “hateth Me, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.” (Joh 7:7.) Let Christians make up their minds to drink the same cup, and let them drink it patiently and without surprise. There is One in heaven who said, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.” (Joh 15:18.) Let them remember this and take courage. The time is short. We are traveling on towards a day when all shall be set right, and every man shall receive according to his works. “There is an end: and our expectation shall not be cut off.” (Pro 23:18.)
We should observe, secondly, in these verses, the high honor that Jesus Christ puts on the Holy Scriptures. We find Him using a text out of the Psalms as an argument against His enemies, in which the whole point lies in the single word “gods.” And then having quoted the text, He lays down the great principle, “the Scripture cannot be broken.” It is as though He said, “Wherever the Scripture speaks plainly on any subject, there can be no more question about it. The case is settled and decided. Every jot and tittle of Scripture is true, and must be received as conclusive.”
The principle here laid down by our Lord is one of vast importance. Let us grasp it firmly, and never let it go. Let us maintain boldly the complete inspiration of every word of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Let us believe that not only every book of the Bible, but every chapter,-and not only every chapter, but every verse,-and not only every verse, but every word, was originally given by inspiration of God. Inspiration, we must never shrink from asserting, extends not only to the thoughts and ideas of Scripture, but to the least words.
The principle before us, no doubt, is rudely assaulted in the present day. Let no Christian’s heart fail because of these assaults. Let us stand our ground manfully, and defend the principle of plenary inspiration as we would the apple of our eye. There are difficulties in Scripture, we need not shrink from conceding; things hard to explain, hard to reconcile, and hard to understand. But in almost all these difficulties, the fault, we may justly suspect, is not so much in Scripture as in our own weak minds. In all cases we may well be content to wait for more light, and to believe that all shall be made clear at last. One thing we may rest assured is very certain,-if the difficulties of plenary inspiration are to be numbered by thousands, the difficulties of any other view of inspiration are to be numbered by tens of thousands. The wisest course is to walk in the old path,-the path of faith and humility; and say, “I cannot give up a single word of my Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The Scripture cannot be broken.”
We should observe, lastly, in these verses, the importance which our Lord Jesus Christ attaches to His miracles. He appeals to them as the best evidence of His own Divine mission. He bids the Jews look at them, and deny them if they can. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you believe not Me, believe the works.”
The mighty miracles which our Lord performed during the three years of His earthly ministry, are probably not considered as much as they ought to be in the present day. These miracles were not few in number. Forty times and more we read in the Gospels of His doing things entirely out of the ordinary course of nature,-healing sick people in a moment, raising the dead with a word, casting out devils, calming winds and waves in an instant, walking on the water as on solid ground. These miracles were not all done in private among friends. Many of them were wrought in the most public manner, under the eyes of unfriendly witnesses. We are so familiar with these things that we are apt to forget the mighty lesson they teach. They teach that He who worked these miracles must be nothing less than very God. They stamp His doctrines and precepts with the mark of Divine authority. He only who created all things at the beginning, could suspend the laws of creation at His will. He who could suspend the laws of creation, must be One who ought to be thoroughly believed and implicitly obeyed. To reject One who confirmed His mission by such mighty works, is the height of madness and folly.
Hundreds of unbelieving men, no doubt, in every age, have tried to pour contempt on Christ’s miracles, and to deny that they were ever worked at all. But they labor in vain. Proofs upon proofs exist that our Lord’s ministry was accompanied by miracles; and that this was acknowledged by those who lived in our Lord’s time. Objectors of this sort would do well to take up the one single miracle of our Lord’s resurrection from the dead, and disprove it if they can. If they cannot disprove that, they ought, as honest men, to confess that miracles are possible. And then, if their hearts are truly humble, they ought to admit that He whose mission was confirmed by such evidence must have been the Son of God.
Let us thank God, as we turn from this passage, that Christianity has such abundant evidence that it is a religion from God. Whether we appeal to the internal evidence of the Bible, or to the lives of the first Christians, or to prophecy, or to miracles, or to history, we get one and the same answer.-All say with one voice, “Jesus is the Son of God, and believers have life through His name.”
==================
Notes-
v31.-[The the Jews took up stones, etc.] The conduct of the Jews is just the same as it was when our Lord said, “Before Abraham was I am.” (Joh 8:58-59.) They regarded His words as blasphemy, and proceeded to take the law into their own hands, as they did in Stephen’s case, and to inflict the punishment due to blasphemy. (See Lev 24:14-16.) “He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.” (So Num 15:36; 1Ki 21:13.) The Jews of course had no power to put any man to death, being under the dominion of the Romans, and if they did stone anyone it would have been a sudden tumultuary proceeding, or act of what is called in America Lynch-law.
Let it be noted that the Greek word for “took up” here, is not the same that is used at Joh 8:59. Here it rather means “they carried.” Parkhurst thinks this implies the great size of the stones they brought. No doubt the stones used in stoning to death, were not pebbles, but large stones. Yet I rather incline to think that it shows that they had to carry stones from some little distance for their murderous purpose. We can hardly suppose there were suitable stones lying about within an old finished building like Solomon’s porch, though there might be stones at a little distance on account of the repairs of the temple.
Augustine remarks, “Behold the Jews understood what Arians do not understand.”
Maldonatus observes that “these stones cry out against the Arians.”
v32.-[Jesus…many good works…shewed…Father, etc.] Our Lord here appeals to the many miracles He had publicly wrought before the Jews, in discharging His commission as sent by the Father to be the Messiah, all good and excellent works, in which none could find any fault, and He asks whether they proposed to stone Him for any of them. They had often asked for signs and proofs of His being the Messiah. Well, He had wrought many such signs. Did they really mean to kill Him for His works? He had gone about only doing good. Did they intend to stone Him for this?
The expression “I have shewed” is curious, and we should have expected rather “I have worked.” It probably means, “I have publicly exhibited before your eyes, and not in a corner, but in such a manner as to court the fullest public observation, many wonderful proofs of my Messiahship.” (Compare Joh 2:18-“What sign shewest Thou?”) So Paul says that “God shall in His own time shew the appearing of Jesus Christ.” (1Ti 6:15.) The expression is probably a Hebraism. (Compare Psa 4:6; Psa 60:3; Psa 71:20; Exo 7:9.)
The expression “from my Father” points to the great truth continually brought forward by our Lord in this Gospel: viz., that all His works as well as words were given to Him by the Father, to be worked and spoken in the world, and ought therefore to be held in special reverence.
Hengstenberg observes, that the expression “many good works,” evidently supposes that John knew of many other miracles, which he does not record, and that many had been done at Jerusalem beside the few that are recorded.
[For which…works…stone Me?] This could be literally rendered, “On account of which work of all these are you stoning Me?” Some, as Gualter and Tholuck, have thought that there is a slight tinge of sarcasm about the question. “Is it so that you are actually going to stone Me for good actions? Are not men generally stoned for evil doings?” Yet this seems an unlikely idea, and is needless. Is not the meaning made clear by simply inverting the order of words? “For what work or action are you going to stone Me? Justice requires that criminals should be punished for doing evil works: but all the many wonderful works I have done among you have been good and not evil. You surely will not stone Me for any of these: reason and your laws teach that this would be wrong. It is not therefore for my works and life that you are going to stone Me. I challenge you to prove that I have done evil. Which of you convicteth Me of sin?”
Taken in this view, the verse is simply a strong assertion made by our Lord, of His own entire innocence of any crime for which He could be stoned.
Hutcheson thinks that “some stones were already cast at Christ, and therefore He says, Do you stone Me?” Yet this seems needless. The present tense here implies only, “Are ye on the point of stoning Me?”
v33.-[The Jews answered, etc.] Our Lord’s confident challenge, as in Joh 8:46, seems to have been found unanswerable by the Jews. They could not prove any evil work against Him. They therefore reply that they do not propose to stone Him for His works, but for having spoken blasphemous words. The precise nature of the blasphemy they say, is that “being nothing but a mere man, He made Himself God, or spoke of Himself in such a way as showed that He claimed to be God.”
This is a very remarkable verse. It is like Joh 5:18-“The Jews sought to kill Him, because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” It shows clearly that the Jews in our Lord’s time attached a much higher and deeper sense to our Lord’s frequently used language about God being His Father than modern readers are apt to do. In fact, they regarded it as nothing less than a claim to equality with God.-Modern Arians and Socinians, who profess to see nothing in our Lord’s Sonship but a higher degree of that relationship which exists between all believers and God, would do well to mark this verse. What they say they cannot see, the Jews who hated Christ could see. This “cotemporaneous exposition,” to use a legal phrase, of our Lord’s words, deserves great respect, and carries with it great weight and authority. As a man, our Lord was a Jew, educated and trained among Jews. Common sense points out that the Jews who lived in His times were more likely to put a correct sense on His words than modern Socinians.
Gualter observes how frequently wicked men and persecutors of Christ’s people have affected a zeal for God’s glory, and pretended a horror of blasphemy. The accusers of Naboth and Stephen are examples: so also the Spanish Inquisition.
A. Clarke observes, “that had the Jews, as many called Christians do, understood our Lord only to mean, by being ‘one with the Father,’ that He had unity of sentiment with the Father, they would not have attempted to treat Him as a blasphemer. In this sense Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and all the prophets were one with God. But what irritated them was that they understood him to speak of unity of nature. Therefore they say, ‘Thou makest Thyself God.’ “
v34.-[Jesus answered them, etc.] Our Lord’s defense of His own language against the charge of blasphemy is very remarkable. It is an argument from a lesser to a greater. If princes, who are merely men, are called gods, He who was the eternal Son of the Father could surely not be justly chargeable with blasphemy for calling Himself the “Son of God.”
The expression “your law,” means the Scriptures. Sometimes our Lord speaks of two great divisions into which the Jews divided the Old Testament: viz., the law and the prophets. (As Mat 22:40.) The “law” then included not the books of Moses only, but everything down to the end of the Song of Solomon. Sometimes He distributes the Scriptures into three parts: the law, the psalms, and the prophets. (As in Luk 24:44.) Here He uses one word for all the Old Testament, and calls it “the law.” By saying “your law,” our Lord reminds His hearers that He appeals to their own honored sacred writings.
The expression, “I said ye are gods,” is drawn from the 82nd Psalm, in which Asaph is speaking of princes and rulers, and their position and duties. Their elevation above other men was so great, and their consequent responsibility for the state of nations so great, that compared to other men, it might be said, “You are as gods.” A King is called “the LORD’s anointed.” (2Sa 1:14.) So “Ye judge not for man, but for the LORD.” (2Ch 19:6.) Princes and magistrates are ordained of God, derive their power from God, act for God, and stand between the people and God. Hence, in a sense, they are called “gods.” Those who wish to see this subject fully worked out, will see it in Hall and Swinnock’s Exposition of the 82nd Psalm.
We should observe how our Lord appeals to Scripture as the judge of controversy: “Is it not written?” A plain text ought to settle every disputed point. He might have argued: He simply quotes a text. By so doing He puts peculiar honor on Scripture.
It is worth noticing that the Hebrew word rendered “judges” in our version of Exo 22:8-9 might have been rendered “gods.” (Compare Exo 22:28; Exo 21:6.)
v35.-[If he called them gods.] Here our Lord proceeds to show what was the edge and point of His argument. All turned on the use of the single word “gods” in one single verse of a Psalm.
It is not very clear what governs the word we render “called” in this sentence. Our translators evidently thought it meant “God.” But why should it not refer direct to “your law” in the last verse? “If your own book of the law in a Psalm has called certain persons gods.”
Chrysostom observes, “What He saith is of this kind: ‘If those who have received this honor by grace, are not found fault with for calling themselves gods, how can He deserve to be rebuked who has this by nature?’ ” Theophylact says the same.
[To whom the Word of God came.] This is a rather difficult expression. Some, as Bullinger and Burgon, think that it refers to the commission from God which rulers receive: “they are persons to whom God has spoken, and commanded them to rule for Him.” Some, as Alford, think it simply means “if He called them gods, to whom God spake in these passages.” But it may justly be replied that it does not say “God spake;” but, “There was the Word of God.”-Of the two views the former seems best. The Greek is almost the same as that of Luk 3:2-“The word of God came to John,”-meaning a special commission.
Heinsius suggests that the sentence means “against whom the word of God was” spoken in the 82nd Psalm: that Psalm containing a rebuke of princes. But this seems doubtful.
Pearce thinks that it means “with whom was the word of judgment?” and refers to the Septuagint version of 2Ch 19:6.
It deserves notice that it is never said of Christ Himself, that the “Word of God came to Him.” He was above all other commissioned judges.
[And the Scripture cannot be broken.] In this remarkable parenthesis our Lord reminds His Jewish hearers of their own acknowledged principle, that the “Scripture cannot be annulled or broken:” that is, that everything which it says must be received reverently and unhesitatingly, and that not one jot or tittle of it ought to be disregarded. Every word of Scripture must be allowed its full weight, and must neither be clipped, passed over, nor evaded. If the 82nd Psalm calls princes who are mere men “gods,” there cannot be any impropriety in applying the expression to persons commissioned by God. The expression may seem strange at first. Never mind, it is in the Scripture, and it must be right.
Few passages appear to me to prove so incontrovertibly, the plenary inspiration and divine authority of every word in the original text of the Bible. The whole point of our Lord’s argument hinges on the divine authority of a single word. Was that word in the Psalms? Then it justified the application of the expression “gods” to men. Scripture cannot be broken. The theories of those who say that the writers of the Bible were inspired, but not all their writings,-or the ideas of the Bible were inspired, but not all the language in which these ideas are conveyed,-appear to be totally irreconcilable with our Lord’s use of the sentence before us. There is no other standing ground I believe, about inspiration, excepting the principle that it is plenary, and reaches to every syllable. Once leaving that ground, we are plunged in a sea of uncertainties. Like the carefully composed language of wills, settlements, and conveyances, every word of the Bible must be held sacred, and not a single flaw or slip of the pen admitted.
Let it be noted that the literal meaning of the word rendered “broken,” is “loosed” or “untied.”
Gill observes, “This is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud. When one doctor has produced an argument, another says, ‘It may be broken,’ or objected to, or refuted. But the Scripture cannot be broken.”
Hengstenberg says, “It cannot be doubted that the Scripture is broken by those who assert that the Psalms breathe a spirit of revenge, that Solomon’s song is a common Oriental love song, that there are in the Prophets predictions never to be fulfilled,-or by those who deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.”
v36.-[Say ye of Him, etc.] Our Lord in this verse presses home on the Jews the force of the expression in the 82nd Psalm. “If princes are called gods, do you mean to call Me, whom the Father sanctified from eternity to be Messiah, and sent into the world in due time, a blasphemer, because I have said I am the Son of God?”
“Say ye of Him” would have been better rendered, “Say ye of Me.” The Greek leaves it open.
The expression “whom the Father hath sanctified,” must mean, “whom the Father hath set apart, and appointed from all eternity in the covenant of grace, as a priest is sanctified and set apart for the service of the temple.” It cannot mean literally “made holy.” It implies eternal dedication and appointment to a certain office. This is one of the places which teach the eternal generation of Christ. Long before He came into the world, “the Father” (not God, observe) had sanctified and appointed the Son. He did not become the Son when He entered the world: He was the Son from all eternity.
The expression, “sent into the world,” means that mission of Christ’s to be the Savior, which took place when He became incarnate, and came among us in the form of a man. He was the Father’s “sent One,” the “Apostle” of our profession. (See Heb 3:1. Joh 3:17, and 1Jn 4:14.) He that was so “sanctified” and “sent,” might well speak of Himself as the Son of God, and equal with God.
Calvin remarks, “There is a sanctification that is common to all believers. But here Christ claims for Himself something far more excellent: namely, that He alone was separated from all others, that the grace of the Spirit and majesty of God might be displayed in Him; as He said formerly, “Him hath God the Father sealed.” (Joh 6:27.)
v37.-[If I do not the works, etc.] Here our Lord once more appeals to the evidence of His miracles, and challenges attention to them. “I do not ask you to believe that I am the Son of God and the Messiah, if I do not prove it by my works. If I did no miracles, you might be justified in not believing Me to be the Messiah, and in calling Me a blasphemer.”
Here, again, we should observe how our Lord calls His miracles the “works of His Father.” They were works given to Him by His Father to do. They were such works as none but God the Father could possibly perform.
Gualter observes, what a proof this verse indirectly supplies of the nullity of the Pope’s claim to be God’s vice-gerent and head of the Church. What are his works? What evidence of a divine mission does he give?
Musculus also remarks that the Pope’s high claims and great sounding titles are useless, so long as his works contradict his words.
v38.-[But if I do, though, etc.] Our Lord here concludes His reply to the Jews: “If I do the works of my Father, then, though ye may not be convinced by what I say, be convinced by what I do. Though ye resist the evidence of my words, yield to the evidence of my works. In this way learn to know and believe that I and my Father are indeed one, He in Me and I in Him, and that in claiming to be His Son, I speak no blasphemy.”
We should note here, as elsewhere, our Lord’s strong and repeated appeals to the evidence of His miracles. He sent to John the Baptist, and desired him to mark His works, if he would know whether He was “the coming One.”-“Go and tell John what ye have seen and heard, the blind receive their sight,” etc. Just so He argues here. (Mat 11:4.)
Let us note the close and intimate union that exists between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity: “The Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Such language can never be reconciled with the views of Socinians.
“By these words,” says Bloomfield, “our Lord meant communion of mind and equality of power. It is plain that the Jews clearly understood that He claimed and ascribed to Himself the attributes of Godhead, and made Himself equal with the Father.”
Chrysostom remarks, that our Lord seems to say, “I am nothing different from what the Father is, so however as that I remain Son; and the Father is nothing different from what I am, so however as that He remains Father. He that knows Me has known the Father, and learned the Son.”
v39.-[Therefore…sought…take Him.] Here we see the utter insensibility of our Lord’s hardened enemies to any argument or appeal to their reason. In spite of what He had now said, they showed a determination to go on with their wicked designs, and tried again to lay violent hands on Him. Nothing seems to harden the heart and take away the reasoning faculty, so completely as obstinate resistance to plain evidence.
[But He escaped…hand.] This would be literally rendered, “And He came forth out of their hand,” as in Luk 4:30; and at Joh 8:59. The escape seems to have been effected by miracle. A restraint was put on the hands of His enemies, and their eyes were temporarily blinded.
v40.-[And went…again…Jordan…John…baptized.] I know not to what the expression “again” can refer here, except to the time when our Lord began His ministry by coming to be baptized by John at Bethabara, beyond Jordan. (see Joh 1:28.) I do not find that He had been there again during the three years of His ministry. There is something touching and instructive in the choice of this place. Where our Lord began His ministry, there He resolved to end it. It would remind His Jewish hearers that John the Baptist had repeatedly proclaimed Him as “the Lamb of God,” and they could not deny John’s divine mission. It would remind His own disciples of the first lessons which they learned under their Master’s teaching, and recall old things to their minds. It is good to revisit old scenes sometimes. The flesh needs many helps to memory.
Henry makes the quaint remark, “The Bishop of our souls came not to be fixed in one See, but to go about from place to place doing good.”
[And there He abode.] Our Lord must evidently have remained here between three and four months,-from the feast of dedication to the last passover, when he was crucified; that is from winter to Easter. Where precisely, and with whom He stayed, we do not know. It must have been a solemn and quiet season to Himself and His disciples.
Musculus observes that this verse teaches us that it is lawful to regard localities in which great spiritual works have been done with more than ordinary reverence and affection.
v41.-[And many resorted, etc.] Our Lord’s choice of an abode seems to have had an excellent effect. It was not so far from Jerusalem but that “many” could come to hear Him, as they did to hear John the Baptist. There, on the very spot where John, now no longer living, used to preach to enormous crowds, and baptize, they could not help being reminded of John’s repeated testimony to Christ. And the consequence was, that they said, “John, whom we believe to have been a prophet, certainly did no miracles, but everything that he said of this Jesus as the coming One, whose shoes he was not worthy to wear [bear], was true. We believed John to be a prophet sent of God. Much more ought this man to be believed.”
Let us observe that John’s preaching was not forgotten after his death, though it seemed to produce little effect during his life. Herod could cut short his ministry, put him in prison, and have him beheaded; but he could not prevent his words being remembered. Sermons never die. The Word of God is not bound. (2Ti 2:9.)
We never read of any miracle or mighty work being performed by John. He was only “a voice.” Like all other ministers, he had one great work,-to preach, and prepare the way for Christ. To do this is more lasting work than to perform miracles, though it does not make so much outward show.
Besser remarks, “John is a type of every servant of Christ. The gift of working miracles, imparted but to few, we can do without, if only one hearer testify of us, ‘All things that they spake of Christ are true.’ If only our preaching, though it may last longer than three years, is sealed as the true witness of Christ, through the experience of those who believe and are saved, then we shall have done miracles enough.”
v42.-[And many believed…there.] Whether this was head belief, the faith of intellectual conviction,-or heart belief, the faith of reception of Christ as a Savior,-we are left in doubt. We have the same expression in Joh 8:30 and Joh 11:45. Yet we need not doubt that very many Jews, both here and elsewhere, were secretly convinced of our Lord’s Messiahship, and after His resurrection came forward and confessed their faith, and were baptized. It seems highly probable that this accounts for the great number converted at once on the day of Pentecost and at other times. (See Act 4:4; Act 6:7; and Act 21:20.) The way had been prepared in their hearts long before, by our Lord’s own preaching, though at the time they had not courage to avow it. The good that is done by preaching is not always seen immediately. Our Lord sowed, and His Apostles reaped, all over Palestine.
Chrysostom has a long and curious comment on this verse. He draws from it the great advantage of privacy and quiet to the soul, and the benefit that women especially derive from living a retired life at home, compared to men. His exhortation to wives to use their advantages in this respect, and to help their husbands’ souls, is very singular, when we consider the times in which he wrote, and the state of society at Constantinople. “Nothing,” he says, “is more powerful than a pious and sensible woman, to bring a man into proper order, and to mold his soul as she will.”
Henry observes, “Where the preaching of repentance has had success, there the preaching of reconciliation and Gospel grace is most likely to be prosperous. Where John has been acceptable, Jesus will not be unacceptable. The jubilee trumpet sounds sweetest in the ears of those who in the day of atonement have afflicted their souls for sin.”
Joh 10:31. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Their view of the blasphemy of His words is given more fully in Joh 10:33. The word again carries us back to chap. Joh 8:59, where a similar attempt is recorded, but in less definite language. There we see the Jews taking up, hastily snatching up, stones that lay near, to cast on Him: here their resolve to inflict the penalty for blasphemy appears more distinctly in their attempt to stone Him. The two words rendered take up are also different, and it is possible that the Evangelist here presents the Jews as bearing up the stones on high, in the very act of preparing to bury Him beneath them. The climax ought not to pass unobserved.They are arrested by His words.
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?
Ver. 31. The Jews therefore brought stones again to stone him.
, 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? ,again, alludes to Joh 8:59. Only , they took up, was used in the former case, while John now says ,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.
10:31 {10} Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
(10) Christ proves his dignity by divine works.
Jesus’ claim to be God’s Son 10:31-39
Clearly the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming more than simple agreement with God in thought and purpose but equality with the Father as deity. They prepared to stone Him for blasphemy. This is the first explicit charge of blasphemy (though cf. Joh 8:59). They believed Jesus was blaspheming because He was claiming to be God (cf. Joh 5:18; Joh 8:59; Mar 14:61-64). Before they could act Jesus asked them for which of His many noble, beautiful works (Gr. erga kala) they were stoning Him. This question confronted them with the incongruity of executing a man for restoring people who had suffered from handicaps. Jesus’ miracles testified that He was doing divine work. However the Jews did not think this through but responded that it was not for His works but for His words that they were going to kill Him. The reader should realize by now that Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be, one with the Father and more than a mere mortal. A man was not making Himself out to be God, but God had made Himself a man (Joh 1:1; Joh 1:14; Joh 1:18).
If Jesus did not really claim to be God, He could easily have corrected the Jews’ misunderstanding here. The fact that He did not is further proof that the Jews correctly understood that He was claiming to be God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)