John 10:31-33 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.… 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 men's 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 33). We stone thee because Thou art not one of us. III. HOWEVER STRONG THE ARGUMENTS IN THEIR FAVOUR (vers. 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" (Psalm 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.) Parallel Verses KJV: Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. |
    |