“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.”
My Notes
What Does John 10:33 Mean?
The Jewish leaders clarify their reason for wanting to stone Jesus: "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." They correctly identify Jesus' claim: He's not just a good teacher or a miracle worker. He's claiming to be God. And in their theological framework, a man claiming to be God is the definition of blasphemy.
The leaders' statement is theologically precise on both counts: Jesus is "being a man" (genuinely human) and "makest thyself God" (claiming divinity). They see the two natures—human and divine—and reject the combination as impossible. A man cannot be God. Therefore the claim must be false. Therefore the claimant must die.
The irony is that they're right about the claim and wrong about its falsehood. Jesus is a man making Himself God—because He is God who has made Himself man. The incarnation is exactly what they describe: a human being who is simultaneously divine. Their accusation is, in fact, the creed: thou, being a man, art God. They've stated the central truth of Christianity while trying to commit murder over it.
Reflection Questions
- 1.The leaders' accusation is the Christian creed: 'thou, being a man, art God.' How do you respond to this same claim?
- 2.They understood Jesus' claim perfectly and rejected it. Is your resistance to Jesus based on misunderstanding or unwillingness?
- 3.If your theological framework can't accommodate what Jesus is claiming, does the framework need to change—or does Jesus?
- 4.The same sentence can be an accusation or a creed. Which is it for you?
Devotional
"Thou, being a man, makest thyself God." They meant it as an accusation. It's actually the most concise statement of the incarnation in the entire Gospel. A man who is God. A human being with divine nature. They said it to condemn Him. Christians say it to worship Him. The same sentence. Opposite responses.
The leaders understood the claim. They weren't confused. They saw Jesus' humanity ("being a man") and heard His claim to divinity ("makest thyself God") and drew a conclusion: blasphemy. Their logic was sound within their framework: if Jesus is just a man, claiming to be God is indeed blasphemy. The one thing they didn't consider—the one possibility their framework couldn't accommodate—was that the man standing in front of them actually was God.
This is the fundamental divide. Not misunderstanding. Understanding. They understood the claim perfectly. They just couldn't accept it. The evidence was in front of them—the miracles, the authority, the teachings, the fulfilled prophecies. But their theology had no category for God becoming human. So the evidence bounced off a framework that was too small to hold it.
The question the Jewish leaders faced is the question everyone faces: is Jesus a man making Himself God (blasphemy) or God who has made Himself man (incarnation)? The claim is the same either way. The difference is whether you reject it or worship it. They chose stones. What do you choose?
Commentary
Trusted original commentary from respected historical Bible scholars and theologians.
Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law,.... In the law which was given unto them, of which they boasted, and…
For blasphemy - See the notes at Mat 9:3. Makest thyself God - See the notes at Joh 5:18. This shows how they understood…
But for blasphemy - I have elsewhere shown that the original word, βλασφημειν, when applied to men, signifies to speak…
We have here another rencounter between Christ and the Jews in the temple, in which it is hard to say which is more…
For a good work The preposition is changed in the Greek; concerning a good work. -That is not the subject-matter of our…
Cross References
Related passages throughout Scripture