Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
35. If he called them gods ] More probably, If it called them gods, viz. the Law. ‘Them’ is left unexplained; a Jewish audience would at once know who were meant. But how incredible that any but a Jew should think of such an argument, or put it in this brief way! These last eight verses alone are sufficient to discredit the theory that this Gospel is the work of Greek Gnostic in the second century.
the word of God ] Practically the same as ‘the Scripture;’ i.e. the word of God in these passages of Scripture. The Word in the theological sense for the Son is not meant: this term appears nowhere in the narrative part of S. John’s Gospel. But of course it was through the Word, not yet incarnate, that God revealed His will to His people.
cannot be broken ] Literally, ‘cannot be undone’ or ‘unloosed.’ The same word is rendered ‘unloose’ (Joh 1:27), ‘destroy’ (Joh 2:19), ‘break’ (Joh 5:18 and Joh 7:23), ‘loose’ (Joh 11:44). Joh 1:27 and Joh 11:44 are literal, of actual unbinding; the others are figurative, of dissolution or unbinding as a form of destruction. Here either metaphor, dissolution or unbinding, would be appropriate; either, ‘cannot be explained away, made to mean nothing;’ or, ‘cannot be deprived of its binding authority.’ The latter seems better. The clause depends upon ‘if,’ and is not parenthetical; ‘if the Scripture cannot be broken.’ As in Joh 2:22, Joh 17:12, Joh 20:9, ‘the Scripture’ (singular) probably means a definite passage. Comp. Joh 7:38; Joh 7:42, Joh 13:18, Joh 17:12, Joh 19:24; Joh 19:28; Joh 19:36-37. Scripture as a whole is called ‘the Scriptures’ (plural); Joh 5:39.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 35. Unto whom the word of God came] Bishop Pearce thinks that “the word , here, is put for , the word or matter of judgment, as in 2Ch 19:6, where Jehoshaphat, setting up judges in the land of Judah, says: Take heed what ye do: judge not for men, but for the Lord, who is with you in judgment – , in the words or matters of judgment, – SEPT., which is nearly according to the Hebrew to bedebar mishpat, in the word or matter of judgment. In De 1:17, when a charge is given to the judges that they should not be afraid of the face of man, this reason is given: for the judgment is God’s. Hence it appears probable that is here used for : and it is called , because it is the judgment that properly belongs to God, and which they who give it on earth give only as acting in the stead of God. A way of speaking very like to this is found in Heb 4:13, where the writer says, , with whom we have to do, i.e. by whom we are to be judged.”
But the words may be here understood for the order, commission, or command of God; and so it properly signifies, Lu 3:2; and in this sense it is found often employed in the Old Testament. When it is there said that the word of the Lord came, c., it means, God gave an order, commission, c., to such a person, to declare or do such and such things.
And the scripture cannot be broken] , dissolved, rendered of none effect, i.e. it cannot be gainsayed or set aside every man must believe this, because it is the declaration of God. If those were termed gods who were only earthly magistrates, fallible mortals, and had no particular influence of the Divine Spirit and that they are termed gods is evident from that scripture which cannot be gainsayed; what greater reason then have I to say, I am the Son of God, and one with God, when, as Messiah, I have been consecrated, sent into the world, to instruct and save men; and when, as God, I have wrought miracles which could be performed by no power less than that of omnipotence?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If God dignified those men (and many of them were also vile and sinful men) with the title of gods, because they had a commission to govern people according to the law of God; and none must contradict what God hath said in his word; there can be no falsehood in the revelation of any part of the Divine will.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
35, 36. If he called them gods untowhom the word of God came . . . Say ye of him whom the Father hathsanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemestThe wholeforce of this reasoning, which has been but in part seized by thecommentators, lies in what is said of the two parties compared. Thecomparison of Himself with mere men, divinely commissioned, isintended to show (as NEANDERwell expresses it) that the idea of a communication of the DivineMajesty to human nature was by no means foreign to the revelations ofthe Old Testament; but there is also a contrast betweenHimself and all merely human representatives of Godthe one”sanctified by the Father and sent into the world“;the other, “to whom the word of God (merely) came,“which is expressly designed to prevent His being massed up with themas only one of many human officials of God. It is never said ofChrist that “the word of the Lord came to Him”; whereasthis is the well-known formula by which the divine commission, evento the highest of mere men, is expressed, as John the Baptist(Lu 3:2). The reason is thatgiven by the Baptist himself (see on Joh3:31). The contrast is between those “to whom the word ofGod came”men of the earth, earthy, who were merely privilegedto get a divine message to utter (if prophets), or a divineoffice to discharge (if judges)and “Him whom (notbeing of the earth at all) the Father sanctified (or setapart), and sent into the world,” an expression neverused of any merely human messenger of God, and used only ofHimself.
because, I said, I am the Sonof GodIt is worthy of special notice that our Lord had notsaid, in so many words, that He was the Son of God, on thisoccasion. But He had said what beyond doubt amounted to itnamely,that He gave His sheep eternal life, and none could pluck them out ofHis hand; that He had got them from His Father, in whose hands,though given to Him, they still remained, and out of whose hand nonecould pluck them; and that they were the indefeasible property ofboth, inasmuch as “He and His Father were one.” OurLord considers all this as just saying of Himself, “I am the Sonof God”one nature with Him, yet mysteriously ofHim. The parenthesis (Joh10:35), “and the Scripture cannot be broken,” referringto the terms used of magistrates in the eighty-second Psalm, has animportant bearing on the authority of the living oracles. “TheScripture, as the expressed will of the unchangeable God, is itselfunchangeable and indissoluble” [OLSHAUSEN].(Compare Mt 5:17).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,…. The Syriac version reads, “because the word of God came to them”; either the divine “Logos”, the essential word, the Son of God, who appeared to Moses, and made him a God to Pharaoh, and who appointed rulers and magistrates among the Jews; and who is the King of kings, and Lord of lords, from whom all receive their power and dominion: this sense is favoured by the Ethiopic version, which renders it, “if he called them gods to whom God appeared, the word of God was with them”: or else the commission from God, authorizing them to act in the capacity of rulers and governors, is here meant; or rather the word of God, which, in the passage of Scripture cited, calls them so, as it certainly does:
and the Scripture cannot be broken; or be made null and void; whatever that says is true, there is no contradicting it, or objecting to it: it is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud y; when one doctor has produced an argument, or instance, in any point of debate, another says, , “it may be broken”; or objected to, in such and such a manner, and be refuted: but the Scripture cannot be broken, that is not to be objected to, there can be no confutation of that.
y T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 4. 1. & Becorot, fol. 32. 1. & passim.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If he called them gods ( ). Condition of first class, assumed as true. The conclusion (verse 36) is ; ( Do ye say? ). As Jews (and rabbis) they are shut out from charging Jesus with blasphemy because of this usage in the O.T. It is a complete ad hominem argument. To be sure, it is in Ps 82:6 a lower use of the term , but Jesus did not call himself “Son of Jahweh,” but “ ” which can mean only “Son of Elohim.” It must not be argued, as some modern men do, that Jesus thus disclaims his own deity. He does nothing of the kind. He is simply stopping the mouths of the rabbis from the charge of blasphemy and he does it effectually. The sentence is quite involved, but can be cleared up.
To whom the word of God came ( ). The relative points to , before. These judges had no other claim to the term (elohim).
And the scripture cannot be broken ( ). A parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had to accept. is first aorist passive infinitive of , to loosen, to break.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The Scripture [ ] . The passage of scripture. See on Joh 2:22; Joh 5:47.
Broken [] . Literally, loosened. Wyc., undone. The word is characteristic of John. He uses it of the destruction of the temple (ii. 19); the breaking of the Sabbath (v. 18); the violation of the law (vii. 23); the destruction of Satan ‘s works (1Jo 3:8), besides elsewhere in the physical sense.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “If he called them gods,” (ei ekeinous eipen theous) “If he called those gods,” meaning responsible judges and Jewish adjudicators of every day affairs, under Jewish law, and He (God) did call them “gods,” as the term “the law” is used in the general sense to refer to all the Old Testament as in Joh 12:34; Joh 15:25; Rom 3:19; 1Co 14:21.
2) “Unto whom the word of God came,” (pros ous ho logos tou theou egeneto) “With whom the word of God was,” expressed; Act 23:5, was entrusted, for administration or enforcement, when they were consecrated to worship or to perform in service in Israel. Why should it then be considered unreasonable that God had consecrated and sent His own Son into the world? Joh 3:16-17; Gal 4:4-5.
3) “And the scripture cannot be broken; – (kai ou dunatai luthenai he graphe) “And the scripture is not able (cannot) be broken,” for it is written, “Thy word is true from the beginning,” Psa 119:160; Mat 5:17-19; Act 13:39.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
35. To whom the word of God was addressed. For Christ means that they were authorized by an undoubted command of God. Hence we infer that empires did not spring up at random, nor by the mistakes of men, but that they were appointed by the will of God, because he wishes that political order should exist among men, and that we should be governed by usages and laws. For this reason Paul says, that all who
resist the power are rebels against God, because there is no power but what is ordained by God, (Rom 13:1.)
It will, perhaps, be objected, that other callings also are from God, and are approved by him, and yet that we do not, on that account, call farmers, or cowherds, or cobblers, gods I reply, this is not a general declaration, that all who have been called by God to any particular way of living are called gods; but Christ speaks of kings, whom God has raised to a more elevated station, that they may rule and govern. In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority. Under the term Law, Christ includes the whole doctrine by which God governed his ancient Church; for since the prophets were only expounders of the Law, the Psalms are justly regarded as an appendage to the Law. That the Scripture cannot be broken means, that the doctrine of Scripture is inviolable.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(35) If he called them gods.The argument is another example of Hillels famous First Canon of Interpretationthat the greater may be inferred from the less. The pronoun he (He) refers probably to God (see Note on Joh. 10:34), or the rendering may be it, as referring to lawi.e., the Psalm.
Unto whom the word of God camei.e., the word declaring Ye are gods, and pointing back to the time indicated by I said, when each one was set apart to be a representative of God, and in that he had His authority to bear also His name.
The scripture cannot be broken.More literally, cannot be loosened. Comp. Notes on Mat. 5:18-19, and for the word rendered broken see also in this Gospel Joh. 5:18; Joh. 7:23.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
35. Unto whom the word of God came Unto whom these words of the psalm were by God addressed.
Broken Made void, deprived of authority. The Lord’s argument assumed the absolute truth of Scripture, and their changeless, indestructible authority. His “theory of inspiration” is this: Whatever is found in Scripture is, in its true meaning, conclusive in religious argument.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 10:35-36. If he called them gods, &c. “If in the scripture, the authority of which you all acknowledge, they to whom the commandment of ruling God’s people was given, are called gods, and the sons of God, on account of their high office, and the inspiration of the Spirit which was bestowed on them but sparingly, can you with reason say of him whom God the Father sent into the world on the grand errand of saving the human race, and whom he hath set apart for that work by giving him the Spirit without measure, (Ch. Joh 3:34.) Thou blasphemest, because he said I am the Son of God.” Some give the argument another turn, thus, if they to whom the word of God, or the revelation of his will came, are called Gods in scripture, how dare you say to the Word of God himself, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world; that is, by whom all the various revelations of the divine will have been made to men;how dare you say to such a Person, on such an occasion, Thou blasphemest. Jesus was charged here by the Jews with ascribing Divinity to his human nature; and in reply he shews, that calling himself the Son of God, did not imply that; and that his works proved such an union of his human nature with the divinewith his supreme godhead,as he had asserted.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Ver. 35. Unto whom the word of God came ] That have their authority from God, whose substitutes and viceregents princes are, and of whom they have their patent. With what face then can the schoolmen defend Thomas Aquinas in that paradox, Dominium et praelatio introducta sunt ex iure humane? God and the bringing in for preference are from man’s law?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
35. ] . . ., to whom God (in those passages) spoke. We can hardly build on this passage, as Luthardt has done, a theory as to the distinction between those to whom came merely in utterance , and those to whom He came in Person . See below on Joh 10:36 .
The expression, . . . (which is not a parenthesis, but constructionally part of the sentence, depending on ), implies, ‘and if you cannot explain this expression away , if it cannot mean nothing, for it rests on the testimony of God’s word,’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
cannot = is not (Greek. ou. App-105) able to.
broken. Compare Joh 7:23.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
35.] . . ., to whom God (in those passages) spoke. We can hardly build on this passage, as Luthardt has done, a theory as to the distinction between those to whom came merely in utterance, and those to whom He came in Person. See below on Joh 10:36.
The expression, . . . (which is not a parenthesis, but constructionally part of the sentence, depending on ), implies, and if you cannot explain this expression away,-if it cannot mean nothing,-for it rests on the testimony of Gods word,
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 10:35. ) them, weak creatures, nay, even deserving of the censure contained in this very psalm.-, called) God called them, professing in the psalm that it is He who speaks, [Joh 10:1, God standeth in the congregation, etc.] Whence it is that immediately after the expression, the word of God, is used, : comp. 1Ki 18:31, The sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the Lord came, saying, Israel shall be thy name.- , unto whom) The reason is herein expressed, why they are called gods, and why in an inferior sense; comp. Mar 12:12, , in reference to, They knew that He spake the parable in reference to them. Others interpret the , against [Engl. Vers. of Mar 12:12].- , the word) And indeed the word in that psalm, which partly calls them gods, partly censures the same persons.- , and not) The Scripture cannot be broken, even in its smallest particular. A most firmly-established axiom. The appellation, gods, though not strictly used, cannot be broken, once that it has been set down in Scripture.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
unto: Gen 15:1, Deu 18:15, Deu 18:18-20, 1Sa 14:36, 1Sa 14:37, 1Sa 15:1, 1Sa 23:9-11, 1Sa 28:6, 1Sa 30:8, 2Sa 7:5, 1Ch 22:8, 2Ch 11:2, 2Ch 11:3, 2Ch 19:2, Rom 13:1
the scripture: Joh 12:38, Joh 12:39, Joh 19:28, Joh 19:36, Joh 19:37, Mat 5:18, Mat 24:35, Mat 26:53-56, Mat 27:35, Luk 16:17, Luk 24:26, Luk 24:27, Luk 24:44-46, Act 1:16
Reciprocal: Exo 4:16 – General Exo 7:1 – a god Exo 12:12 – gods Exo 22:28 – the gods 1Sa 28:13 – gods ascending 2Ki 15:12 – And so 2Ki 23:16 – burned Psa 56:4 – In God I will Psa 82:1 – the gods Psa 138:2 – for thou hast Isa 34:16 – Seek Isa 40:8 – the word Dan 9:13 – As it is Dan 11:2 – will I Hos 1:1 – word Mat 1:22 – that Mat 12:17 – it Mat 26:54 – General Luk 4:4 – It Luk 19:34 – General Luk 22:37 – this Joh 19:24 – that Act 2:24 – because Rom 3:19 – what things Rom 9:6 – as though 1Co 8:5 – that 2Ti 3:16 – All Jam 4:5 – the scripture Rev 17:17 – until
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
The mere fact of being the ones to whom the word of God was sent, entitled them to the family relationship and the right to its name, which was God. The scripture cannot be broken denotes that these Jews had no right to speak of Jesus in a way that would criticize the scripture just quoted.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
[If he called them gods, etc.] the Jews interpret those words of the Psalmist, “I have said, Ye are gods,” to a most ridiculous sense.
“Unless our fathers had sinned, we had never come into the world; as it is written, I have said, ‘Ye are gods, and the children of the Most High: but ye have corrupted your doings; therefore ye shall die like men.’ ” And a little after; “Israel had not received the law, only that the angel of death might not rule over them; as it is said, ‘I have said, Ye are gods: but ye have corrupted your doings; therefore ye shall die like men.’ ”
The sense is, If those who stood before mount Sinai had not sinned in the matter of the golden calf, they had not begot children, nor had been subject to death, but had been like the angels. So the Gloss: “If our fathers had not sinned by the golden calf, we had never come into the world; for they would have been like the angels, and had never begot ten children.”
The Psalmist indeed speaks of the magistracy, to whom the word of God hath arrived, ordaining and deputing them to the government by an express dispensation and diploma, as the whole web and contexture of the psalm doth abundantly shew. But if we apply the words as if they were spoken by our Saviour according to the common interpretation received amongst them, they fitly argue thus: “If he said they were angels or gods, to whom the law and word of God came on mount Sinai, as you conceive; is it any blasphemy in me then, whom God in a peculiar manner hath sanctified and sent into the world that I might declare his word and will, if I say that I am the Son of God?”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 10:35-36. 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 consecrated, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am Son of God? If (1) the speaker in the psalm called men gods because the word of God (the expression of Gods will, which, as judges, they were bound to carry out) was given to them; and if (2) this passage of scripture cannot be broken, cannot be set aside, but must be taken as inspired by God, how can they accuse Jesus of blasphemy? To the judges the word of God came: Jesus was sent into the world by the Father to declare His will, as Himself The Word. The judges were commissioned by God for the work to which they proved unfaithful: He, consecrated by the Father to His work, had but fulfilled His trust when He declared Himself Son of God. If then the judge, as a partial and imperfect expression of God (if we may so speak) to the people received the name of god, with infinitely higher right may Jesus call Himself Son of God. His claim of the name was in itself no foundation for their charge: their own law should have taught them this.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 35
Them unto whom the word of God came; that is, the commission of God; meaning those commissioned by him to execute his will.–Cannot be broken; cannot be pronounced wrong.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be {l} broken;
(l) Void and of no effect.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The clause "the Scripture cannot be broken" means that man cannot annul it, set it aside, or prove it false.
"It means that Scripture cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous." [Note: Morris, p. 468.]
Jesus’ statement affirms the unity, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture. Jesus held a very high view of Scripture. His point was that it was inconsistent for the Jews to claim the Old Testament as their authority (Joh 10:34) and then to disregard something that it said because they did not agree with it. It was inconsistent for them, specifically, to stone Jesus for claiming to be God and the Son of God when the Old Testament spoke of humans as gods and as God’s sons.
"In the singular he graphe usually means a single passage of Scripture, and the verb translated broken (luo) is used in Joh 10:18 of disregarding the letter of the law. The meaning here is ’this passage of Scripture cannot be set aside as irrelevant to the matter under discussion’." [Note: Tasker, p. 136.]
Jesus did not use this argument to claim that He was God. He used it to stall His critics. He wanted them to see that the divine terms that He was using to describe Himself were terms that the Old Testament itself also used of human beings. They could not logically accuse Him of blasphemy because the Father had set Him aside and sent Him into the world with a special mission. He was a legitimate Son of God for this reason.
As the Jews had sanctified their temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanies, so God had sanctified His Son. The Jews celebrated the sanctification of their physical temple with the feast of Dedication, but they were unwilling to accept the spiritual temple that replaced it, namely, Jesus.