Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 10:34 - 10:36
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_10:34-36. In Psa_82:6, unrighteous authorities of the theocratic people—not angels (Bleek), nor yet heathen princes (De Wette, Hitzig)—whose approaching destruction, in contrast to their high dignity, is intended to stand out, are called gods, agreeably to the old sacred view of rulers as the representatives of God, which was entertained in the theocratic nation. Compare Exo_21:6; Exo_22:8; Exo_22:28. From this, Jesus draws the conclusion a minori ad majus, that He might call Himself God’s Son without blasphemy. He is surely far more exalted than they ( ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασε , etc.); and nevertheless had designated Himself, not θεός , as though wishing to make a God of Himself, but merely υἱὸς τ . θεοῦ .[67]
ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ] Spoken of the Old Testament generally, of which the law was the fundamental and authoritative portion. Comp. Joh_12:34, Joh_15:25; Rom_3:19; 1Co_14:21.
ὑμῶν ] as in Joh_8:17.
ἐκείνους ] whom? Jesus takes for granted as known.
εἶπε ] namely, ὁ νόμος (compare afterwards ἡ γραφή ), not God (Hengstenberg).
πρὸς οὕς ] to whom, not adversus quos (Heinsius, Stolz), which does not follow from the context. There is nothing to warrant the supposition that the prophets are also referred to (Olshausen).
ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ] Neither the λόγος ἄσαρκος (Cyril), nor the revelations of God (Olshausen, comp. Godet), but the saying of God just mentioned: ἐγὼ εἶπα , etc. This saying belongs, not to the time when the Psalm was written, but to that earlier period (the period of the induction of the authorities into their office, comp. Psa_2:7), to which God, the speaker, points back.
καὶ οὐ δύναται , etc.] This clause, though containing only an auxiliary thought, and not a main point of the argumentation (Godet), has been without reason treated as a parenthesis; whereas both in point of structure and sense it is dependent on εἰ : and it is impossible, etc. So also Ewald, Godet, Hengstenberg.
λυθῆναι ] The Scripture (consequently, also, that saying of the. Psalms) cannot be loosened, i.e. cannot be deprived of its validity. Comp. Mat_5:19; Joh_5:18; Joh_7:23; Herod. 3. 82; Plat. Phaedr. p. 256 D; Gorg. p. 509 A; Dem. 31. 12, 700, 13. The auctoritas normativa et judicialis of the Scriptures must remain unbroken. Note, in connection herewith, the idea of the unity of the Scriptures as such, as also the presupposition of their theopneustia.
ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγ , etc.] That is surely something still greater than the λόγος τ . θεοῦ , addressed to authorities when they were installed in their offices. In this question, which is placed in the apodosis, and which expresses surprise, the object, which is correlate to the ἐκείνους of Joh_10:35, is very emphatically placed at the commencement; and ὑμεῖς (you people) is placed over against the inviolable authority of the Scripture.
ἡγίασε ] hath consecrated, a higher analogue of the consecration to the office of prophet (Jer_1:5; Sir_45:4; Sir_49:7), denoting the divine consecration to the office of Messiah, who is the ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (Joh_6:69; Luk_4:34). This consecration took place on His being sent from heaven, and immediately before His departure (hence ἡγίασε καὶ ἀπέστ .), in that the Father not merely “set apart” the Son to the work (as though the word ἐξελέξατο had been used; Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 86; comp. Euth. Zigabenus, Hengstenberg, and Brückner), but also conferred on Him the Messianic ἐντολή and ἐξουσία , with the fulness of the Spirit appertaining thereunto (Joh_3:34), and the power of life (Joh_5:26), and the πλήρωμα of grace and truth (Joh_1:14).
ὅτι βλασφημεῖς ] The reply which, in view of ὃν , etc., we should have expected to be in the oblique construction ( βλασφημεῖν or ὅτι βλασφημεῖ , comp. Joh_9:19), passes over with the increasing vivacity of the discourse into the direct construction; compare Joh_8:54, and see Buttm. Neuf. Gr. p. 234 [E. T. p. 272].
ὅτι εἶπον ] because I said. He had said it indirectly in Joh_10:29-30.
[67] Hengstenberg incorrectly remarks: “He accepts the charge, ‘Thou makest thyself God.’ ” On the contrary, He does not enter on it at all, but simply justifies the predicate, “Son of God,” which He had assumed for Himself. But Beyschlag also is wrong when he says (p. 106): “That which Jesus here affirms concerning Himself ( ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασε , etc.) might equally have been affirmed by every prophet.” On such a view, no regard would be paid to the relation of πατήρ and υἱός .