GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
I and the Father are one.”
Therefore Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?”
The Jews answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
John 10:30-33 sits inside this longer paragraph.
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you don’t believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify about me. But you don’t believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father who has given them to me is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
Therefore Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?”
The Jews answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
I and the Father are one.”
Therefore Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?”
The Jews answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
And I and my father are one.
Then the Iewes agayne toke up stones to stone him with all.
Iesus answered them: many good workes have I shewed you from my father: for which of them will ye stone me?
The Iewes answered him sayinge. For thy good workes sake we stone ye not: but for thy blasphemy and because that thou beinge a man makest thy selfe God.
I and my Father are one.
Then ye Iewes againe tooke vp stones, to stone him.
Iesus answered them, Many good workes haue I shewed you from my Father: for which of these workes doe ye stone me?
The Iewes answered him, saying, For the good worke we stone thee not, but for blasphemie, and that thou being a man, makest thy selfe God.
44 distinct cross-references across this passage (45 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv30–33 30. I and my Father are one. He intended…
30. I and my Father are one. He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked; for they might allege that the power of God did not at all belong to him, so that he could promise to his disciples that it would assuredly protect them. He therefore testifies that his affairs are so closely united to those of the Father, that the Father’s assistance will never be withheld from himself and his sheep The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv31–32 Christ proveth his dignity by divine works.
Christ proveth his dignity by divine works.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv30–33 30 I and my Father are one.
30 I and my Father are one.
Ver. 30. I and my Father are one] Both for nature or essence, and for one consent, both in willing and working. Out of the harbour of Goodwin’s Sands the pilot cannot make forth, they say, without sinking in those sands, unless he so steer his ship, that he bring two steeples, which stand off, so even in his sight, that they may seem to be but one. So is it here.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv30–33 My Father and I are one, not only in…
My Father and I are one, not only in counsel and will, (as Joh 17:11,22, and believers are said to be of one heart, Act 4:32), but in nature, power, and essence; for it is plain that our Saviour here ascribes the preservation of his sheep, not to the will, but to the power of his Father: None is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. And it is plain by what follows, that the Jews thus understood our Saviour. Some eminent protestant interpreters expound this of a oneness in consent and will, doing the same things, and driving the same design, both agreeing to preserve the sheep unto eternal life; but (with all respect unto them) I think the context implies more, though this be not excluded.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv30–31 That is, one in essence and nature, one in…
That is, one in essence and nature, one in authority and power, and not barely one in will and affection, one in concord or consent. That this is the genuine signification of the words, appears by a three-fold argument.
1. From the original words: it is not said, I and my Father are one person in the masculine gender, but in the neuter I and my Father are one thing. Now if that thing be not the divine Being, they cannot be one; for since the Father is confessed to be God, the Son cannot be one thing with the Father, if he be not God too.
Read full note →
2. It appears from the context; our Saviour, in the preceding versed, ascribed the preservation of his sheep to the power of his Father; None can pluck them out of my Father’s hand; and he ascribes it also to his own power; None shall pluck them out of my hand; plainly intimating, that his sheep were equally safe in his own hand, as well as in his Father’s; for, says he, I and my Father are one; that is, one in power: and, if they be one in power, they must be one in nature; unless we make an almighty creature, which is a contradiction.
3. It appears evidently by what follows in the next verse, that the Jews understood our Saviour in this sense; why else did they take up stones to stone him? We stone thee, say they, for blasphemy, because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
The Jews took our Saviour’s meaning aright, and were satisfied, that when he said, I and my Father are one, he asserted himself to be God, and deserved to die; and well he had deserved it, if he had not been God. The adversaries of our Saviour’s divinity, to elude the force of these words, which make so much agaainst them, interpret the words thus, I and my Father are one; that is, say they, we are Mia bdlhsiv one in will and affection, one in concord and consent: this is a truth, but not the great truth contained in these words; for thus believers are one with God, and one with one another; namely, by a harmony of wills and desires: so far as they are regenerated, God’s will and theirs are unisons, they will and desire the same thing, and are of one heart and of one mind.
But God and Christ are one, in a much higher sense than Christ and believers are one; namely, one in essence and nature, one in authority and power, Christ being con-substantial with God.
Learn hence, That the Lord Jesus Christ is for nature co-essential, for dignity co-equal, and for duration co-eternal with the Father.
2. That although Christ be one in essence with the Father, yet are they distinct persons one from antoher. I and my Father, we are one.
3. Learn hence, That the Son being one in essence, one in power, one in consent and will, with the Father, they are both equally concerned for the perseverance of the saints, for preserving them in grace, and for bringing them to glory. None shall pluck them out of mine or my Father’s hand: for I and my Father are one. If the power be the same, the essence must be the same.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv30–33 I and my Father are one. Not in person,…
I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him. The Jew (p) objects, that
"if the sense of this expression is, that the Father and the Son are one, as the Nazarenes understand and believe it, it will be found that Jesus himself destroys this saying, as it is written in Mar 13:32, for saith Jesus, "that day and that hour, there is knoweth, not the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only"; lo, these words show, that the Father and the Son are not one, since the Son does not know what the Father knows.''
Read full note →
But it should be observed, that Christ is both the Son of God, and the son of man, as the Christians believe; as he is the Son of God, he lay in the bosom of his Father, and was privy to all his secrets, to all his thoughts, purposes, and designs; and as such, he knew the day and hour of judgment, being God omniscient; and in this respect is one with the Father, having the same perfections of power, knowledge, &c. but then as the son of man, he is not of the same nature, and has not the same knowledge; his knowledge of things was derived, communicated, and not infinite; and did not reach to all things at once, but was capable of being increased, as it was: and it is with regard to him as the son of man, that Jesus speaks of himself in Mar 13:32; whereas he is here treating of his divine sonship, and almighty power; wherefore considered in the relation of the Son of God, and as possessed of the same perfections with God, he and his Father are one; though as man, he is different from him, and knew not some things he did: so that there is no contradiction between the words of Christ in one place, and in the other; nor is he chargeable with any blasphemy against God, or any arrogance in himself, by assuming deity to himself; nor deserving of punishment, even to be deprived of human life, as the Jew suggests; nor is what he produces from a Socinian writer, of any moment, that these words do not necessarily suppose, that the Father and the Son are of the same essence; since it may be said of two men, that they are one, end yet are not the same man, but one is one man, and the other another; for we do not say they are one and the same person, which does not follow from their being of one and the same nature, but that they are one God, and two distinct persons.
(p) Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 50. p. 438, 439.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On v30 I and the Father are one - Not by…
I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one expression of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv30–33 Verse 30. I and my Father are one.] If…
Verse 30. I and my Father are one.] If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and MY Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and THE Father, εγω και ὁ πατηρ ἑν εσμεν - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are ONE, ONE in nature, ONE in all the attributes of Godhead, and ONE in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh 17:11; Joh 17:22.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On v32 Joh 10:32-36. Jesus answered, Many good works have I…
Joh 10:32-36. Jesus answered, Many good works have I showed you from my Father — That is, in confirmation of my mission from my Father I have wrought many miracles, all of a beneficent kind, and most becoming the perfections of my Father, 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, and I have raised the dead: for which of all these are you going to stone me? The Jews answered, For a good work we stone thee not — We are going to punish thee with death, not for a 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. Jesus — Not judging it proper, at that time, to bring the sublime doctrine of his Deity into further debate; answered them, Is it not written in your law — Or, in those sacred books which you own to be of divine original, (see Psa 82:6,) where it is plain the persons that are spoken of are princes and magistrates; I said, Ye are gods? — “The Jewish magistrates were God’s deputies in an especial manner, because the people whom they governed were his peculiar people, and because, in many instances, they were expressly called by him to undertake the fatigues of government, and had an afflatus, or inspiration of the Spirit, for that end. Thus the high-priests derived their dignity from God, and were possessed of the Urim and Thummim, by which they inquired of the Lord. When Moses chose the seventy elders to assist him in the distribution of justice, God put his Spirit upon them, and they prophesied, Num 11:17. Joshua, who succeeded Moses by divine appointment, is said to have been a man in whom was the Spirit, Num 27:18. Many of the judges were raised up by God, and had his Spirit. When Saul was anointed, the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied, 1Sa 10:6; 1Sa 10:10.” — Macknight. If he (God) called them gods, to whom the word of God came — That is, to whom God was then speaking; and the Scripture cannot be broken — That is, nothing that is written therein can be censured or rejected. Dr. Campbell translates this clause, And if the language of Scripture is unexceptionable; observing, “Our Lord defends what he had said from the charge of blasphemy, by showing its conformity to the style of Scripture in less urgent cases; insomuch, that if the propriety of Scripture language were admitted, the propriety of his must be admitted also.” “This,” adds he, “is one of those instances wherein, though it is very easy for the translator to discover the meaning, it is very difficult to express it in words which shall appear to correspond to those of his author.” Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified — Hath set apart for the great work of redeeming and saving the human race; and sent into the world — For that purpose; Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? — If the Scripture, which cannot err, gives the title of gods to mortal and sinful men, why should you reckon guilty of blasphemy, me, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world on so grand a design, because I assume to myself a title which so justly belongs to me, namely, that of the Son of God? Some set the argument in another light, thus: If they, to whom the word of God, and the revelation of his will came, are called gods in Scripture, how dare you say to the Word of God himself, 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, it must be observed, was charged here by the Jews with ascribing divinity to his human nature; and in reply to this he shows, that, calling himself the Son of God, did not imply that, and that his works proved such a union of the human nature with the divine as he had before asserted, than which no answer could have been more wise and pertinent.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv30–33 I and my Father are one - The word…
I and my Father are one - The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from the connection. In the previous verse he had said that he and his Father were united in the same object that is, in redeeming and preserving his people. It was this that gave occasion for this remark. Many interpreters have understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may bear this construction. In this way they were understood by Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, and others. Most of the Christian fathers understood them, however, as referring to the oneness or unity of nature between the Father and the Son; and that this was the design of Christ appears probable from the following considerations:
The question in debate was (not about his being united with the Father in plan and counsel, but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and keep his people from all enemies, or that he had power superior to men and devils that is, that he had supreme power over all creation. He affirmed the same of his Father. In this, therefore, they were united. But this was an attribute only of God, and they thus understood him as claiming equality to God in regard to omnipotence. The Jews understood him as affirming his equality with God, for they took up stones to punish him for blasphemy Joh 10:31, Joh 10:33, and they said to him that they understood him as affirming that he was God, Joh 10:33. Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See the notes at Joh 10:34-37. He immediately made another declaration implying the same thing, leaving the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the same manner, Joh 10:37-39. If Jesus had not intended so to be understood, it cannot be easily reconciled with moral honesty that he did not distinctly disavow that such was his intention. The Jews were well acquainted with their own language. They understood him in this manner, and he left this impression on their minds.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv30–31 I and the Father are one,[2] or one being,…
I and the Father are one,[2] or one being, not one person, nor one by an union of affection only, but in nature, substance, power, and other perfections, as appears by the whole text: for Christ here tells them that none of his elect shall perish, because no one can snatch them out of his hands, no more than out of the hand of his Father: and then adds, that he and his Father are one, or have one equal power: and if their power, says St. John Chrysostom, is the same, so is their substance. Christ adds, (ver. 38.) that the Father is in him, and he in the Father; which also shews an union of nature and substance, and not only of love and affection, especially when taken with other words of our Saviour Christ. (Witham)
===============================
Read full note →
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Unum sumus, Greek: en esmen, i.e. says St. John Chrysostom, secundum potentiam. Greek: kata ten dunamin entautha legon. See St. Cyril, p. 667.; St. Augustine, tract. 49. p. 617, Huc usque Judæi tolerare potuerunt ... tune vero more suo duri ad lapides concurrunt ... ideo irati sunt, quia senserunt non posse dici, Ego et pater unum sumus, nisi ubi æqualitas est Patris et Filii. ... Ecce intelligunt Judæi, quod not intellligunt Ariani.
====================
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv30–33 I and my Father are one--Our language admits not…
I and my Father are one--Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. "Are" is in the masculine gender--"we (two persons) are"; while "one" is neuter--"one thing." Perhaps "one interest" expresses, as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into His own hands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of His Father's hands, as if they had not been given out of them. "Neither have they," says He; "though He has given them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever--they cannot be, and when given to Me they are not, given away from Himself; for HE AND I HAVE ALL IN COMMON." Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true. And AUGUSTINE was right in saying the "We are" condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead), while the "one" (as explained) condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv30–33 30. Are one—One in will, but also one in…
30. Are one—One in will, but also one in power and surety. For it is upon this oneness of power and surety that the security of the believer’s salvation is grounded.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv30–33 30. I and my Father are one] ‘One’ is…
30. I and my Father are one] ‘One’ is neuter in the Greek; not one. Person, but one Substance. There is no ‘My’ in the Greek; I and the Father are one. Christ has just implied that His hand and the Father’s hand are one, which implies that He and the Father are one; and this He now asserts. They are one in power, in will, and in action: this at the very least the words roust mean; the Arian interpretation of mere moral agreement is inadequate. Whether or no Unity of Essence is actually stated here, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see. They would stone Him for making Himself God, which they would not have done had He not asserted or implied that He and the Father were one in Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correct them, as assuredly He would have done, had their animosity arisen out of a gross misapprehension of His words. Comp. Rev_20:6; Rev_22:3.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv30–33 (30) I and my Father are one.—The last clause…
(30) I and my Father are one.—The last clause of Joh_10:29 is identical with the last clause of Joh_10:28 if we identify “Father’s” with “My.” This our Lord now formally does. The last verses have told of power greater than all, and these words are an assertion that in the infinity of All-mighty Power the Son is one with the Father. They are more than this, for the Greek word for “one” is neuter, and the thought is not, therefore, of unity of person, but is of unity of essence. “The Son is of one substance with the Father.” In the plural “are” there is the assertion of distinctness as against Sabellianism, and in the “one” there is the assertion of co-ordination as against Arianism. At recurring periods in the history of exegesis men have tried to establish that these words do not imply more than unity of will between the Father and the Son. We have seen above that they assert both oneness of power and oneness of nature; but the best answer to all attempts to attach any meaning lower than that of the divinity of our Lord to these His words is found here, as in the parallel instance in Joh_8:58-59, in the conduct of the Jews themselves. To them the words conveyed but one meaning, and they sought to punish by stoning what seemed to them to be blasphemy. Their reason is here given in express words, “because that Thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (Joh_10:33).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv30–33 Then follows the sublime minor premise of the syllogism,…
Then follows the sublime minor premise of the syllogism, I and the Father (we) are one. As Augustine and Bengel have said, the first clause is incompatible with Sabelliauism, and the second clause with Arianism. The Lord is conscious of his own Personality as distinct from that of the Father, and yet he asserts a fundamental unity. But what kind of unity is it? Is it a unity of wish, emotion, sentiment, only? On the contrary, it is a oneness of redemptive power. The Divine activity of the Father"s eternal love did not come to any arrest or pause when he gave the sheep to the Son, but with its irresistible might is present in the "hand" of Jesus (no one "can," not no one "shall"). Therefore the en , the one reality, if it does not express actual unity of essence, involves it. Some have endeavored to minimize the force of this remarkable statement by comparing it with Joh_17:21-23, where Jesus said believers are "to be in us," and "to be one, even as we are one," i.e. to have the same kind of relation with one another (being a collective unity) as the Father and Son sustain towards each other, "I in them, thou in me, that they may be perfected reach their telov , by being blended into one;" i.e. into one Divine personality by my indwelling. Now, it is nowhere there said that believers and the Father are one, but such a statement is scrupulously avoided. Numerous attempts have been made to escape from the stupendous assumption of this unity of power and essence with the Father. The whole gist of the assertion reveals the most overwhelming self-consciousness. The Lord declares that he can bestow eternal life and blessedness upon those who stand in close living relation with himself, and between whom and himself there is mutual recognition and the interchanges of love and trust. He bases the claim on the fact that the Father"s hands are behind his, and that the Father"s eternal power and Godhead sustain his mediatorial functions and, more than all, that the Father"s Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity. If be merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment?
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v31 Then the Jews took up stones again
Joh_10:31-33
Then the Jews took up stones again
Read full note →
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)
.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv30, 33 30, 31. I and my Father are one. Are…
30, 31. I and my Father are one. Are so united that the Father is pledged to keep the sheep of the Son. These words the Jews held to be blasphemy, and sought to stone him. Compare 8:52.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v30 Joh 10:30-39. “I and My Father are one.” There…
THE ASSAULT
Joh 10:30-39. “I and My Father are one.” There is but one God, but three persons — i.e., three characters — manifested by the Deity to the world. I am a preacher, a teacher, and a book editor, three characters, and yet but one. “Again the Jews took up stones that they may stone Him.” As they felt that they were prepared to sustain their condemnation of blasphemy against Him because He claimed to be the Son of God, they thought if they could raise a row and excite the rabble, they might get rid of Him by stoning Him to dearth, and cover up the whole transaction under the charge of blasphemy. Though they take up stones, and show every manifestation of instantaneous death, Jesus remains perfectly tranquil. “And Jesus responded to them, Many good works have I shown to you from the Father, on account of which work of these do you stone Me? The Jews responded to Him, We do not stone Thee for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.” According to the Mosaic law, the penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning. The same also was the penalty for Sabbath-breaking. Consequently His enemies, who hounded Him day and night, thirsting for His blood, were constantly on the alert, ready to catch up anything whatever, and use it as a charge against Him. It so happened, in the normal administration of His official Messiahship, He was really under the necessity of rendering Himself vulnerable to the charge of blasphemy, in order to enunciate and vindicate His claims to the Messiahship, as it would have been really impossible for any one to preach and testify in harmony with the Messianic office without exposing Himself to the liability of the charge of blasphemy; whereas His constant works of philanthropy, healing the multitudes of sick people everywhere He went, would have necessitated Him to intermit His work on the Sabbath or become vulnerable to the charge of Sabbatic violation. Consequently His enemies, having these two strings to their bow, pulled on them incessantly, making music for the bottomless pit.
Read full note →
“Jesus responded to them, Is it not written in your law that I said, Ye are gods?” (Psalms 80.) Here the word is applied to tyrannical world-rulers. “If He called them gods to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, do you say that Thou blasphemest because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, believe not Me, believe the works, in order that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. Then they were seeking to arrest Him, and he went out from their hand.” Our Lord’s ministry is now rapidly winding to a close. Consequently it is important to emphasize the great, salient point of His earthly mission, and everywhere prominently hold up His Christhood, so that all the people would clearly apprehend and indubitably witness His claims to the Messiahship, thus exposing Himself to the constant liability of arrest and arraignment, as they had a rabbinical law specifying that any man claiming to be the Christ should be brought before the Sanhedrin for investigation and examination. Now that He boldly meets the issue, despite their charge of blasphemy, they proceed to arrest Him. Of course, the Sanhedrin would have condemned Him to death by stoning (Lev 24:16), thus cutting off His earthly ministry about one month before the time. Consequently He passed away from their hands, of course unobserved, all losing sight of Him, and thinking He was somewhere in the crowd; but no one being able to find Him, meanwhile He passes clearly away.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v31 The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy:
The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy:
v. 31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Read full note →
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good…
Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father
Jesus performed the miracles by the power of God. The word "Father" is an important title for God. (See: Translating Son and Father)
Read full note →
For which of those works are you stoning me?
This question uses irony. Jesus knows the Jewish leaders do not want to stone him because he has done good works. (See: Irony)
The Jews answered him
The word "Jews" is a synecdoche that represents the Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus. AT: "The Jewish opponents replied" or "The Jewish leaders answered him" (See: Synecdoche)
making yourself God
"claiming to be God"
translationWords
works
stone
blasphemy
God
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv30–31 10:30 The Father and the Son are two separate…
10:30 The Father and the Son are two separate persons with one purpose and nature (1:1, 14; 14:9; 20:28). This is the basis of Jesus’ power to protect God’s flock (10:28-29) and a stunning expression of Jesus’ divinity.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.