ยอห์น 10:36 วิจารณ์

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's parabolical discourse concerning himself as the door of the sheepfold, and the shepherd of the sheep (v. 1-18). II. The various sentiments of people upon it (Joh 10:19-21). III. The dispute Christ had with the Jews in the temple at the feast of dedication (v. 22-39). IV. His departure into the country thereupon (Joh 10:40-42).

Verily, verily, I say unto you,.... To the Scribes and Pharisees, who had taken it ill that they should be thought to be blind; and who had cast out the man that Christ had cured of blindness, for speaking in favour of him; and who had traduced Christ as an impostor, and a deceiver, and set up themselves to be the shepherds of the flock, and the guides and rulers of the people; all which occasion the following parable; the design of which is to show, that Christ is the true and only shepherd, who was appointed, called, and sent of God, whose the sheep are, whose voice they hear, and know, and whom they follow; and that they, the Scribes and Pharisees, were thieves and robbers, and not shepherds of the flock; who were not sent of God, nor did they come in at the right door, but in another way, and usurped a domination, which did not belong to them. He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold: the sheepfold, with the Jews, was called and this, as their writers say (o), was an enclosure sometimes in the manner of a building, and made of stone, and sometimes was fenced with reeds, and in it was a large door, at which the shepherd went in and out, when he led in, or brought out the sheep. At tithing, which was done in the sheepfold, they made a little door, so that two lambs could not come out together; and to this enclosure is the allusion here; and by the "sheepfold" is meant the church of God; see Joh 10:16; and a good fold it is, Eze 34:14. The church may be compared to a sheepfold, because it is separated from the world: it is where the people of God, and sheep of Christ are gathered together; where there is a strict union between them; have society with each other; keep one another warm and comfortable; and where they are fed and nourished, and are preserved; and where they lie down and have rest; and which, like a sheepfold, will be taken down, and not always continue in the form it now is: and by "the door" into it, is meant Christ himself, as appears from Joh 10:7; faith in him, a profession of him, and authority from him. Now he that does not come into the church of God, whether as a member of it, or officer in it, at this door, but climbeth up some other way; by hypocrisy and deceit: or, like the prophets of old, who ran and were not sent; prophesied when they were not spoken to, but took their place and post by usurpation: the same is a thief and a robber; steals into the church, or into an office in it, and robs God or Christ of their power and authority; and such were the Scribes and Pharisees: the Persic version renders the words, "whoever does not introduce the sheep through the door of the sheepfold, know that that man is a thief and a robber"; which these men were so far from doing, that they would not suffer those that were entering to go in, Mat 23:13. The difference between a thief and a robber, with the Jews, was, that the former took away a man's property privately, and the latter openly (p). (o) Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Becorot, c. 9. sect. 7. (p) Maimon. Hilchot Genuba, c. 1. sect. 3.

If I do not the works of my Father,.... Not only what the Father had given him to finish, and which he wrought by him as man, but such as were as great as the Father had done, and were equal to them; and which could not be done by any, but by the Father, or by one that is equal with him: believe me not: Christ appeals to his miracles as proofs of his deity, sonship, and Messiahship, and desires no other credit than what they demand; see Mat 11:3.

The Jews thought that what he had said was … hateful and blasphemous, for he had shown himself in these discourses to be God. Therefore they rushed at once to stoning and set to work passionately to hurl stones. He, however, strongly refuted his adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said he, “he called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scripture cannot be broken, you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am the Son of God.” With these words, he did not deny that he was God, but rather he confirmed the assertion that he was God. For because undoubtedly they are said to be gods to whom the words of God were given, much more is he God who is found to be superior to all these. And nevertheless he refuted the calumny of blasphemy in a fitting manner with lawful tact. For his desire is to be understood to be God as the Son of God, not wanting to be understood as the Father. Thus he said that he was sent and showed them that he had manifested many good works from the Father that further demonstrates that he wanted to be understood as the Son and not the Father. And in the latter portion of his defense he made mention of the Son, not the Father when he said, “You say, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ” Thus, as far as pertains to the guilt of blasphemy, he calls himself the Son, not the Father; but as pertaining to his divinity, by saying, “I and the Father are one,” he proved that he was the Son of God. He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father.

He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the insolence, of such a charge as that of making himself God, though he was only a man. The law had conferred the title on holy people. The word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its sanction to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world?… The law gives the name of gods to those who are confessedly mortals. And so, if other people may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the man whom the Father has sanctified. Also, note here that throughout this argument he calls himself man, for the Son of God is also Son of man. He excels above the rest who, nonetheless, are guilty of no irreverence in styling themselves gods. He excels above them in that he has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification. … And so, the accusation of blasphemy against him in making himself God falls to the ground. For the Word of God has conferred this name on many people; and he who was sanctified and sent by the Father did no more than proclaim himself the Son of God.

(vii. de Trin. c. 24) Before proving that He and His Father are one, He answers the absurd and foolish charge brought against Him, that He being man made Himself God. When the Law applied this title to holy men, and the indelible word of God sanctioned this use of the incommunicable name, it could not be a crime in Him, even though He were man, to make Himself God. The Law called those who were mere men, gods; and if any man could bear the name religiously, and without arrogance, surely that man could, who was sanctified by the Father, in a sense in which none else is sanctified to the Sonship; as the blessed Paul saith, Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness. (Rom. 1:4) For all this reply refers to Himself as man; the Son of God being also the Son of man.

When they said, "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou being a man makest thyself God"; hear His answer; "If the Scripture called them gods unto whom the word of God came, how say ye that I blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?"

(Tract. xlviii) i. e. the Law given to you, I have said, Ye are Gods? (Ps. 82:6) God saith this by the Prophet in the Psalm. Our Lord calls all those Scriptures the Law generally, though elsewhere He spiritually distinguishes the Law from the Prophets. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. (Matt. 22:40) In another place He makes a threefold division of the Scriptures; All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Me. (Luke 24:44) Now He calls the Psalms the Law, and thus argues from them; 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 hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? (Tract. xlviii) Or sanctified, i. e. in begetting, gave Him holiness, begat Him holy. If men to whom the word of God came were called gods, much more the Word of God Himself is God. If men by partaking of the word of God were made gods, much more is the Word of which they partake, God.

But see what answer the Lord gave to their dull apprehension. He saw that they could not bear the brilliance of the truth, and He tempered it with words. "Is it not written in your law," that is, as given to you, "that I said, Ye are gods?" And the Lord called all the Scriptures generally, the law. "If He calleth them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken: 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?" If the word of God came to men, that they might be called gods, how can the very Word of God, who is with God, be otherwise than God? If by the word of God men become gods, if by fellowship they become gods, can He by whom they have fellowship not be God? If lights which are lit are gods, is the light which enlighteneth not God? If through being warmed in a way by saving fire they are constituted gods, is He who gives them the warmth other than God?

But perhaps when the Divine Scripture saith that the Son was sent from the Father, the heretic straightway deems the expression a support to his own error, and will say in all probability: "Ye who refuse to speak of the Son as inferior to the Father, do ye not see that He was sent from Him, as from a superior and a greater one?" What then shall we say? Surely, that the mention of His being sent is particularly suitable to the measure of His self-humiliation; for thou nearest that Paul, uniting Both, then says that the Son was sent from the Father, when He was also made of a woman and under the Law as a Man amongst us, although being "Lawgiver and Lord. And if the Son be understood as made in the form of a servant, then said to be sent from the Father, He suffers no damage whatever, with regard to His being also Consubstantial with Him and Coequal in glory and in no respect at all falling short. For the expressions used among ourselves, if they are applied to God, do not admit of being accurately tested; and I say that we ought not to understand them just exactly as they are usually understood among ourselves, but as far as may be suitable to the Divine and Supreme Nature itself. For what [else could happen], unless the tongue of man possessed words competent to suffice for setting forth the Divine glory? Accordingly it is absurd that the preeminence of the glory which is highest of all should suffer injury through the weakness of the human tongue and its poverty of expression. Remember that which Solomon says: The glory of the Lord maketh language obscure. For when we waste our labour in trying to express accurately the glory of the Lord, we are like to those who wish to measure the heavens by a span. Therefore when anything is said concerning God in words generally applied to men, it must be understood in a manner befitting God. Else what wilt thou do when thou hearest David singing in his psalm: O Thou that sittest upon the Cherubim, show Thyself; stir up Thy strength and come to save us? For how does the Incorporeal sit? And where does He call upon the God of the universe to come to for us, the God Who saith by the Prophets: Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord? Where therefore should He come to for us, when He filleth all things? Again, it is written that some were building a tower to reach unto heaven, and the Lord came down to see the city and the tower; and the Lord said, Gome and let Us go down and there confound their tongues. Where did the Lord go down? Or in what manner doth the Holy Trinity urge Itself on to the descent? And how, tell me, did the Saviour Himself also promise to send to us the Paraclete from heaven? For where or whence is That Which filleth all things sent? For the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, as it is written. Therefore the expressions ordinarily used of ourselves signify things above us, if they are spoken concerning God. Dost thou wish to understand any of those things so difficult of comprehension? Then thy mind proves too weak to grasp them, and dost thou perceive that it is so? Be not provoked to anger, O man, but confess the weakness of thy nature, and remember him that said: Seek not out the things that are above thy strength. When thou di-rectest thy bodily eye to the orb of the sun, immediately thou turnest it away again, overcome by the sudden influx of the light. Know therefore that the Divine Nature also dwells in unapproachable light; unapproachable, that is, by the understandings of those who over-busily look into it. Therefore also when things concerning God are expressed in language ordinarily used of men, we ought not to think of anything base, but to remember that the wealth of the Divine Glory is being mirrored in the poverty of human expression. For what if the Son is sent from the Father? Shall He then on this account be inferior? But when from the solar body its light is sent forth, is that of a different nature from it and inferior to it? Is it not foolish merely to suppose such a thing for a moment? Therefore the Son, being the Light of the Father, is sent to us, as we may say, from a Sun that darteth forth Its Beam; which indeed David also entreats may take place, saying: O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. And if it is a glory to the Father to have the Light, how dost thou call that in which He is glorified inferior to Him? And the Son Himself also says concerning Himself: Whom the Father sanctified and sent. Now the word "sanctified" is used in the Scripture in many senses. For it is said that anything dedicated to God is sanctified. For instance He said unto Moses: Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn. And again, that is sanctified which is prepared by God for the execution of any of His designs, for He speaks thus concerning Cyrus and the Medes, when He determined that they should make war against the city of the Babylonians; The mighty ones are come to fulfil Mine anger, being both joyous and proud; they have been sanctified, and I lead them. And again, that is sanctified which is made to participate of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Son saith that Himself is sanctified by the Father, as having been prepared by Him for the restitution of the life of the world, and for the destruction of those who oppose Him; or still further, in so far as He was sent to be slain for the salvation of the world; for indeed those things are called holy which are set apart as an offering to God. And we say that He was sanctified, even as men like ourselves are, when He became flesh: for His Flesh was sanctified, although it was not in its nature holy, by being received into union with the Word; and because this is come to pass, He is sanctified by the Father; for the Godhead of Father and Son and Holy Spirit is One.

Or, sanctified, i. e. set apart to be sacrificed for the world: a proof that He was God in a higher sense than the rest. To save the world is a divine work, not that of a man made divine by grace.

How then do I blaspheme when I call Myself the Son of God? For although I bear flesh and descend from the lineage of David, you do not know the mystery, namely that the fleshly human nature could not otherwise receive communion with God unless He appeared to it in the flesh, as if under a veil.

Then when he says, do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, he draws his conclusion. If, with Hilary, we refer this to Christ insofar as he has a human nature, the meaning is this: Some people are called gods only because they participate in God's word. How then can you say, you are blaspheming, that is, how can you consider it blasphemy, if that man who is united in person to the Word of God is called God? This is why he says, whom the Father sanctified. For although God sanctifies all who are sanctified - "Sanctify them in truth" (17:17) - he sanctified Christ in a special way. He sanctifies others to be adopted children - "You have received the spirit of adoption" (Rom 8:15) - but he sanctified Christ to be the Son of God by nature, united in person to the Word of God. These words, whom the Father sanctified, show this in two ways. For if God sanctifies as Father, it is clear that he sanctifies Christ as his Son: "He was predestined to be the Son of God by the Spirit of sanctification" (Rom 1:4). We can also see this by his saying, and sent into the world. For it is not fitting for a thing to be sent some place unless it existed before it was sent there. Therefore, he whom the Father sent into the world in a visible way, is the Son of God, who existed before he was visible: for as we saw above, "He was in the world, and the world was made through him" (1:10); and "God sent the Son into the world" (3:17). Do you say of him whom the Father sent into the world, you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? This was like saying: I, who am united in person to the Word, have much more reason to say this than those to whom the word of God came. But how did the Jews realize that he was claiming to be the Son of God? Our Lord did not say this expressly. I answer that although our Lord did not say this expressly, yet from what he did say - I and the Father are one and what my Father has given to me is greater than all - they understood that he received his nature from the Father and was one in nature with him. But to receive the same nature from another, and to be it, is to be a son. But if, with Augustine, we refer him whom the Father sanctified to Christ as God, then the meaning is this: him whom the Father sanctified is he whom he has begotten holy, or sanctified, from eternity. The other things which follow should be explained in the same way as Hilary does. Yet the better explanation is to refer everything to Christ as man.

Christ speaks the parable of the sheepfold, Joh 10:1-6. Proclaims himself the door of the sheepfold, Joh 10:7-10, and the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, Joh 10:11-18. The Jews are again divided, and some revile and some vindicate our Lord, Joh 10:19-21. His discourse with the Jews at the temple, on the feast of dedication, Joh 10:22-29. Having asserted that he was one with the Father, the Jews attempt to stone him, Joh 10:30, Joh 10:31. He vindicates his conduct, and appeals to his works, Joh 10:32-38. They strive to apprehend him; he escapes, and retires beyond Jordan, Joh 10:39, Joh 10:40. Many resort to and believe on him there, Joh 10:41, Joh 10:42.

THE GOOD SHEPHERD. (John 10:1-21) He that entereth not by the door--the legitimate way (without saying what that was, as yet). into the sheepfold--the sacred enclosure of God's true people. climbeth up some other way--not referring to the assumption of ecclesiastical office without an external call, for those Jewish rulers, specially aimed at, had this (Mat 23:2), but to the want of a true spiritual commission, the seal of heaven going along with the outward authority; it is the assumption of the spiritual guidance of the people without this that is meant.