Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:33
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.
33. For a good work ] The preposition is changed in the Greek; concerning a good work. ‘That is not the subject-matter of our charge?’
and because ] ‘And’ is explanatory, shewing wherein the blasphemy consisted: it does not introduce a separate charge.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For blasphemy – See the notes at Mat 9:3.
Makest thyself God – See the notes at Joh 5:18. This shows how they understood what he had said.
Makest thyself – Dost claim to be God, or thy language implies this.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 33. But for blasphemy] I have elsewhere shown that the original word, , when applied to men, signifies to speak injuriously of their persons, character, connections, c. but when applied to God it signifies to speak impiously, i.e. contrary to his nature, perfections, the wisdom of his providence, or goodness of his works.
Thou, being a man] That is, only a man – makest thyself God. When Christ said before, Joh 10:30, I and the Father are one, had the Jews understood him (as many called Christians profess to do) as only saying he had a unity of sentiments with the Father, they would not have attempted to treat him for this as a blasphemer; because in this sense Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and all the prophets, were one with God. But what irritated them so much was that they understood him as speaking of a unity of nature. Therefore they say here, thou makest thyself God; which word they understood, not in a figurative, metaphorical, or improper sense, but in the most literal meaning of the term.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Jews answered him, These are not the things we are incensed against thee for; we grant that thou hast done many good works amongst us; these we gratefully acknowledge. But this is that which we are not able to bear, that whereas thou art but a mere man, by thy discourses thou makest thyself equal with God, and so art guilty of
blasphemy; which is committed as well by arrogating to ourselves what is proper to God, as by imputing to God the natural or moral imperfections of the creature; and the blasphemer deserveth to be stoned, according to the law of God. By this it is manifest, that the Jews understood our Saviour, affirming that he and his Father were one, as asserting himself one in essence with his Father, not in will only.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
33. for a blasphemywhoselegal punishment was stoning (Le24:11-16).
thou, being a manthatis, a man only.
makest thyself GodTwicebefore they understood Him to advance the same claim, and both timesthey prepared themselves to avenge what they took to be the insultedhonor of God, as here, in the way directed by their law (Joh 5:18;Joh 8:59).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The Jews answered him, saying,…. As follows;
for a good work we stone thee not: they could not deny, that he had done many good works; this was too barefaced to be contradicted; yet they cared not to own them; and though they industriously concealed their resentment at them, yet they were very much gravelled and made uneasy by them, but chose to give another reason for their stoning him:
but for blasphemy; which required death by stoning, according to
Le 24:16, and according to the Jews’ oral law q:
and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God; which they concluded very rightly, from his saying, Joh 10:30, that God was his Father, and that he and his Father were one; that is, in nature and essence, and therefore he must be God; but then this was no blasphemy, but a real truth, as is hereafter made to appear; nor is there any contradiction between his being man, and being God; he is truly and really man, but then he is not a mere man, as the Jews suggested; but is truly God, as well as man, and is both God and man in one person, the divine and human nature being united in him, of which they were ignorant: two mistakes they seem to be guilty of in this account; one that Christ was a mere man, the other that he made himself God, or assumed deity to himself, which did not belong to him, and therefore must be guilty of blasphemy; neither of which were true: the phrase is used by the Jews, of others who have taken upon them the name and title of God; as of Hiram king of Tyre, of whom they say, , “that he made himself God” r; the same they say of Nebuchadnezzar; and the modern Jews still continue the same charge against Jesus, as their ancestors did, and express it in the same language, and say of him, that he was a man, and set himself up for God s.
q Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 4. r Bereshit Rabba, sect. 96. fol. 83. 4. & Tzeror Hammor, fol. 134. 4. s Aben Ezra in Gen. xxvii. 39. & Abarbinel Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 5. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For a good work we stone thee not ( ). “Concerning a good deed we are not stoning thee.” Flat denial that the healing of the blind man on the Sabbath had led them to this attempt (8:59) in spite of the facts.
But for blasphemy ( ). See Ac 26:7 where with the genitive is also used with for the charge against Paul. This is the only example in John of the word (cf. Mt 12:31).
And because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God ( ). In 5:18 they stated the charge more accurately: “He called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” That is, he made himself the Son of God. This he did beyond a doubt. But was it blasphemy? Only if he was not the Son of God. The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Lev 24:16; 1Kgs 21:10; 1Kgs 21:13).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Saying. Omit.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “The Jews answered him, saying,” (apekrithesan auto hoi loudaioi) “The Jews replied to him,” defending the hate and malice in their hearts manifest by the stones they gripped in their hands, Joh 10:32.
2) “For a good work we stone thee not; (peri kalou ergou ou lithazomen se) “We do not stone you concerning an ideal or good work,” any miraculous deed you have done, for they feared the people, if they opposed the physical help He had unquestionably given them, Mar 11:18; Mar 12:12; Luk 12:19-20; Luk 22:2.
3) “But for blasphemy;” (alla peri blasphemias) “But concerning blasphemy;” what He had said that they, rejecting Him as God’s Son, considered to be blasphemy. They made the false charge on numerous occasions because there was “evil” in their hearts, as expressed Mat 9:3-4; To claim to be Divine, on an equal plane of truth, righteousness and power with the Father, was blasphemy in their unsaved religious minds, Joh 5:18; Mat 26:65.
4) “And because that thou, being a man,” (kai hoti su anthroposen) “And because that you being a man,” a complete man, the (heir) Redeemer of mankind, Luk 19:10; Heb 2:9; Heb 2:15.
5) “Makest thyself God.” (poieis sea uton theon) “Make yourself God,” claiming to be Divine. So they at least got the message that He claimed to be the Son of God, one with the Father, Joh 10:30; Joh 1:14; Joh 3:16-17; Joh 4:9; Joh 17:21-24; Joh 19:7.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
33. We stone thee not for a good work. Though wicked men carry on open war with God, yet they never wish to sin without some plausible pretense. The consequence is, that when they rage against the Son of God, they are not content with this cruelty, but bring an unprovoked accusation against him, and constitute themselves advocates and defenders of the glory of God. A good conscience must therefore be to us a wall of brass, by which we boldly repel the reproaches and calumnies with which we are assailed. For whatever plausibility may adorn their malice, and whatever reproach they may bring on us for a time, if we fight for the cause of God, he will not refuse to uphold his truth. But as the wicked never want pretences for oppressing the servants of God, and as they have also hardened impudence, so that, even when vanquished, they do not cease to slander, we have need of patience and meekness, to support us to the end.
But for blasphemy. The word blasphemy, which among profane authors denotes generally every kind of reproach, Scripture refers to God, when his majesty is offended and insulted.
Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God. There are two kinds of blasphemy, either when God is deprived of the honor which belongs to him, or when anything unsuitable to his nature, or contrary to his nature, is ascribed to him. They argue therefore that Christ is a blasphemer and a sacrilegious person, because, being a mortal man, he lays claim to Divine honor. And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man. They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(33) The Jews answered him.Comp for the thoughts of this verse Notes on Joh. 10:30 and on Joh. 5:18.
For a good work . . . but for blasphemy.The word rendered for is not the causal on account of, which we have in the last verse, but concerning, the technical form for an indictment. For the Mosaic law concerning blasphemy, see Lev. 24:10-16.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
33. Being a man As he truly was.
Makest thyself God As he truly did. The Jews, says an ancient writer, understood him better than the Arians.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘The Judaisers answered him, “We are not stoning you for any good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a mere man, claim to be God”.’
Modern men here argue about the Aramaic and the Greek in this passage as to whether Jesus was really claiming to be God, but these ancient scholarly men who knew and spoke the language fluently, and knew its nuances, had no doubts. They knew what He was saying. And according to their viewpoint they were right. But it was only because they had not listened to His words and considered His works and followed Him in full recognition of His status. They had failed to recognise the implications of His life and teaching. There is no question that here Jesus has made clear His unique position ‘on the divine side of reality’, and that it is something that they in fact at least have recognised. And had their hearts been right it would have led on to them acknowledging Him. But sadly their hearts were not right. They were full of their own preconceptions. Thus they missed the moment of truth.
Notice how easily they dismissed the works. All others marvelled at what He had done, but not these men. Their minds dismissed them almost before they happened. Jesus had done so many miracles that it had become almost commonplace. To them the theology of words was more important than the signs that revealed Who Jesus was. Their minds were fixed in the past and unchangeable. They could not believe that Moses could be superseded. They were tunnel-visioned.
However, His hour had not yet come so He challenged them to rethink their position.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Ver. 33. But for blasphemy ] These were holy persecutors, in pretence at least. So Maximinian thought the blood of Christians would be an acceptable sacrifice to his gods. Christianum sanguinem Diis victimam esse gravissimam. (Tertul.) So Francis II of France and Philip II of Spain held the same opinion of the Lutherans in their dominions. Zeal without knowledge is like mettle in a blind horse.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
33. ] = ., ch. Joh 5:18 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 10:33 . The irony is as much in the situation as in the words. The answer is honest enough, blind as it is: . “For a praiseworthy work we do not stone Thee, but for blasphemy, and because Thou being a man makest Thyself God.” For in this sense cf. Act 26:7 . The does not introduce a second charge, but more specifically defines the blasphemy. On the question whether it was blasphemy to claim to be the Christ see Deu 18:20 , Lev 24:10-17 , and Treffry’s Eternal Sonship . It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. And it is noteworthy that Jesus never manifests indignation when charged with making Himself God; yet were He a mere man no one could view this sin with stronger abhorrence.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
blasphemy. See Lev 24:16.
God = Jehovah. See App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
33.] = ., ch. Joh 5:18.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 10:33. , for [concerning, lit.]) As the Latins say, qu de caus. So [ ], Joh 10:32.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 10:33
Joh 10:33
The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.-Here those anxious to kill Jesus are made to bear testimony to the many good works he did in their midst. They admitted that he had done these works, but insisted that they did not stone him for these works, but for making himself the Son of God when he was only a man.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
but: Lev 24:14, 1Ki 21:10
makest: Joh 10:30, Joh 5:18, Psa 82:6, Rom 13:1, Phi 2:6
Reciprocal: Lev 24:16 – blasphemeth Pro 26:28 – lying Jer 29:26 – and maketh Mat 9:3 – This Mat 26:65 – He Mar 2:7 – speak Mar 14:6 – a good Luk 5:21 – blasphemies Joh 8:53 – whom Joh 18:32 – the saying Act 6:11 – blasphemous Heb 1:8 – O God
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
The specific grievance they put forward was that Jesus made himself God. He did not make such a claim directly (although he could have done so justly if taken rightly) but only had claimed to be the Son of God.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 10:33. The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. These words show conclusively how the saying of Joh 10:30 was understood by those who heard it: they perceive now who is meant by the Father (comp. Joh 8:27), and see that to claim oneness with Him is to claim Deity. All recollection of good works and indeed all evidence whatever they cast away, treating such a claim as incapable of support by any evidence.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Vv. 33-42. 1. There can be no doubt that the Jews understood Jesus as claiming to be God. Joh 10:33 clearly proves this. The words of the following verses are to be explained, accordingly, in view of this fact.
2. There are two parts in the answer of Jesus: Joh 10:34-36, and Joh 10:37-38. For the appreciation of the meaning, it must be borne in mind that Jesus enters upon an argument, and does not merely make a new assertion. It is natural, therefore, that what He says should have a progressive character, and should present the claim which He makes through the evidences for it. The claim is that of Joh 10:30, with what it suggestswhich they had interpreted in the sense of Joh 10:33 b. In such a progressive argument we might easily expect Him to begin, as He does, with a sort of argumentum ad hominem, founded upon the Old Testament, which they could not reject, and to say, If the O. T. addresses magistrates as gods, in their capacity as God’s ministers in the world, surely there is no blasphemy in the appropriation of this title by one who, in a far more exalted sense, is God’s ambassadorthe one whom He has sent into the world to reveal Himself. His position is therefore, He says, exalted enough, even from the point of view of the Divine messenger and teacher revealing the truthin which capacity they might easily recognize Himto justify the title. But now He moves forward to the more positive side. What His real position is, they may know by the evidence of the works. If they will not be convinced by His words, let these latter teach them. These will show that there is something more in Him than the highest Divine messenger, that He is even the one who is consecrated and sent into the world to make known the truththat there is a vital and essential union between Him and the Father (the Father in me and I in the Father), that union which is implied in, and the necessary condition of, unity of power (I and the Father are one, Joh 10:30).
3. In Joh 10:40 Jesus is represented as going again into the region where He is first brought before the reader, in Joh 1:28. The public ministry of Jesus, in a certain sense, closes at this point, and, in accordance with the carefully-arranged plan of the book, it seems not unnatural that the writer should thus bring the narrative again to its starting-point. The introduction of John the Baptist again, at the close, is characteristic of the author. The testimony which John had given before his death produces its fruit when Jesus is drawing near to the time of His own death, and that which had led the writer himself to Jesus, at the beginning, is now represented as bringing many others to a like faith. They believed, as he had done, because of the confirmation which the sight and hearing of Jesus gave to what John had told them. The placing of this testimony and its results at the end of these most striking declarations of Jesus respecting Himself is worthy of notice, as connected with the development of the proof of the truth which the author desires to establish. The insertion of these three verses can hardly be explained, except as they are regarded as having relation to such a plan of the Gospel as has been indicated in these notesthe plan of setting forth progressive testimony and a growing faith which moves along with it; and their presence here, accordingly, gives a new evidence that the author wrote his Gospel under the guiding influence of this plan.
4. The statement here made respecting John corresponds with the declaration of the Prologue with reference to him and with his statements respecting himself in chs. 1 and 3. The of this Gospel are, all of them, in the sense of Joh 20:30-31. John was not the light, but his mission was to bear testimony to the light. The object of his mission and testimony was that all might believe through him. This object was realized in the case of the persons here mentioned. The prominence given to John’s testimony in this Gospel is thus easily explained.