Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:36

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?

36. Say ye ] ‘Ye’ with great emphasis, ‘Do ye, in opposition to the Scripture, say?’

of him, whom the Father hath sanctified ] Omit ‘hath;’ both verbs are aorists. This also is emphatic, in opposition to ‘them unto whom the word of God came.’ Men on whom God’s word has conferred a fragment of delegated authority may be called ‘gods’ (Elohim) without scruple; He, Whom the Father Himself sanctified and sent, may not be called Son of God (no article before ‘Son’) without blasphemy! By ‘sanctified’ is meant something analogous to the consecration of Jeremiah before his birth for the work of a Prophet. (Jer 1:5). When the Son was sent into the world He was consecrated for the work of the Messiah, and endowed with the fulness of grace and truth (see on Joh 1:14), the fulness of power (Joh 3:35), the fulness of life (Joh 5:26). In virtue of this Divine sanctification He becomes ‘the Holy One of God’ (Joh 6:69; Luk 4:34). See on Joh 17:17; Joh 17:19, the only other passages in S. John’s writings where the word occurs.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Suppose I were no more than a mere man, yet being sanctified, that is, set apart of God for the special work of mans redemption, and sent of God into the world with commission both to reveal and to do his will, yet dare you say that I blaspheme,

because I said, I am the Son of God? In the place {viz. Psa 82:6} where God said of magistrates, Ye are gods, he also added, all of you are children of the Most High; you have therefore no reason to rage at me, though I did say I was the Son of God; being one whom the Father hath in his eternal counsels set apart for this great and special work, and actually by his providence sent into the world for the finishing and despatching of it. But we must take heed that we do not understand our Saviour here, as if he in another sense assumed to him the title of the Son of God; it was enough for him at present to assert, that the title well enough belonged to him, if he indeed had been no more than the Son of man, as they said.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

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

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

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

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world ( ). Another relative clause with the antecedent (, it would be, object of ) unexpressed. Every word counts heavily here in contrast with the mere judges of Ps 82:6.

Thou blasphemest ( ). Recitative again before direct quotation.

Because I said ( ). Causal use of and regular form (cf. in verse 34).

I am the Son of God ( ). Direct quotation again after . This Jesus had implied long before as in 2:16 (my Father) and had said in 5:18-30 (the Father, the Son), in 9:35 in some MSS., and virtually in 10:30. They will make this charge against Jesus before Pilate (19:7). Jesus does not use the article here with , perhaps (Westcott) fixing attention on the character of Son rather than on the person as in Heb 1:2. There is no answer to this question with its arguments.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Sanctified [] . Better, as Rev., in margin, consecrated. The fundamental idea of the word is separation and consecration to the service of Deity. See note on Act 26:10, on the kindred adjective agiov, holy or consecrated.

The Son of God. There is no article. Its absence directs us to the character rather than to the person of Jesus. The judges, to whom the quotation in ver. 35 refers, were called gods, as being representatives of God. See Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8, where the word rendered judges is elohim, gods. In Exo 22:28, gods appears in the A. V. 35 Jesus ‘ course of reasoning is, if these judges could be called gods, how do I blaspheme in calling myself Son of God, since the Father has consecrated me and sent me on a special mission to the world ?

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Say ye of him,” (humeis legete) “Do you all tell,” mean to tell, or charge, directly to Him; Do you wish to stick to your charge about me that I blaspheme? Joh 10:33.

2) “Whom the Father hath sanctified,” (hon ho pater hegiasen) “Him whom the Father has sanctified,” consecrated, sent forth, set apart as the Son of man, heir redeemer, Joh 1:14; Luk 4:16-21; Isa 11:2-3; Isa 61:1-2; Joh 6:27.

3) “And sent into the world,” (kai apesteilen eis ton kosmon) “And commissioned, sent, or mandated (to come) into the world,” as He has me, Joh 3:17; Joh 3:34; Luk 19:10; 1Jn 4:9-10; Joh 17:18.

4) “Thou blasphemest;” (hoti blasphemeis) “That you blaspheme,” repeatedly, every time you claim to be Divine, as also charged, Mat 9:3; Mat 26:65; Mar 14:64.

5) “Because I said I am the Son of God?” (hoti eipon huios tou theou eimi) ”Because I said, I am (exist as) the Son of God?” Php_2:6; Joh 10:29-30. To blaspheme meant to make remarks of intentional reviling of indignity toward God or sacred things, Joh 14:9.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

36. Whom the Father hath sanctified. 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 power of the Spirit and the majesty of God might be displayed in him; as he formerly said, that him hath God the Father sealed, (Joh 6:27.) But this refers strictly to the person of Christ, so far as he is manifested in the flesh. Accordingly, these two things are joined, that he has been sanctified and sent into the world. But we must also understand for what reason and on what condition he was sent It was to bring salvation from God, and to prove and exhibit himself, in every possible way, to be the Son of God.

Do you say that I blaspheme? The Arians anciently tortured this passage to prove that Christ is not God by nature, but that he possesses a kind of borrowed Divinity. But this error is easily refuted, for Christ does not now argue what he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, from his miracles in human flesh. For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited him to us. Besides, we ought to remember what I have formerly suggested, that Christ does not, in this passage, explain fully and distinctly what he is, as he would have done among his disciples; but that he rather dwells on refuting the slander of his enemies.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(36) Whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world.Better, Whom the Father sanctified, and sent into the world. The tense refers to the time of His consecration to His Messianic work, and to the Incarnation, which was the commencement of it.

Because I said, I am the Son of God.He had not said this in express words, but, as we have seen, it is directly implied in Joh. 10:29-30, and the Jews had so understood what He said (Joh. 10:33).

So far, then, the argument is simply a technical one, such as formed the staple of those customary in Rabbinic schools, and based on the letter of the Scriptures. The law (Psalm) applied the term Elohim (gods) to men representing God; no word of that Scripture could fail to hold good; how much more, therefore (a minori ad majus), could the term Son of God be applied to Him who was not a man consecrated to any earthly office, but consecrated by God, and sent into the world to represent God to man. (Comp. Note on Joh. 1:18.) Their charge of blasphemy is, on their own principles, without the shadow of foundation. But in these words there is a deeper meaning than this technical one. When we speak of men representing God, we are already in thought foreshadowing the central truth of the Incarnation. Priests who offered sacrifices for sins, and kings who ruled Gods people, and prophets who told forth Gods will, were consecrated to their holy office because there was the divine in them which could truly be called god. Every holy life was in its degree a type of the Incarnate life of the Son of God. But He was the ideally true Priest sacrificing Himself for the world, the ideally true Prophet declaring Gods will in its fulness, the ideally true King ruling in righteousness. Every holy life was as a ray of the divine glory manifest in human flesh, but all these rays were centred in the nimbus of glory which rested as a crown on the head of Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

36. Father hath sanctified Hath set apart, has devoted to a holy use. It is the visible man, who by the incarnation is thus set apart and sent into the world, that is touched by the argument thus far. Jesus applies thus his argument to his humanity in order to meet their phrase being a man. A man may be included in the divine name and dignity.

Son of God For Son of God he may be in a higher sense than magistrates are gods.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments