John 10

John 10:30

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 10

30"I and the Father are one."

C o m m e n t a r yThis verse is often used by Trinitarians as proof of the essential unity and equality of Jesus with His Father. Some Trinitarian commentators and many non-Trinitarians argue that Jesus is simply speaking about a unity of purpose, of His union with God’s design and plan for His people. Still others cite this verse as teaching that the Father and Jesus are actually the same divine Person. The word translated “one” is in the neuter gender, not the masculine, and specifies “unity” in a general, not personal, sense. The precise nature of this unity must be derived from context. Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father’s purpose, but with His Father’s power (vv. 28 - 29).

Jesus has said that no one can snatch those the Father has given Him from His hands. He has said that He gives eternal life to His sheep - a claim to Divine prerogative in itself.

He then repeats what He has said about no one being able to steal His sheep, but this time, it is the Father’s hands who hold them - the Father who is “greater than all.” Thus, Jesus equates Himself to His Father in both giving eternal life to the sheep and in the power to “hold” them fast. It is in this context of Divine salvation and preservation that Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” Thus, Jesus is not asserting that He is the same person as the Father (which would have demanded the masculine “one”); nor is He claiming unity in purpose or plan. In this context, He can only be asserting His unity with His Father as the author of eternal life and equal in power to Him who is “greater than all.” This view is supported by several additional facts: 1. The Jews understood Him to be claiming to be God. (vv. 31 - 33). 2. Jesus does not deny their accusation (vv. 34 - 36). 3. Jesus repeats His original assertion in slightly different language (vv. 37 - 39).

This claim in an overt declaration of Jesus’ Deity. 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”, esmen, “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 (Gill <>). It seems clear that the unity spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, the Father’s hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power (Westcott <>). The oneness of will and task, in this context, is so transparently a divine will, a divine task (viz. the saving and preserving of men and women for the kingdom) that although the categories are formally functional some deeper union is presupposed (Carson, John <>). G r a m m a t i c a l A n a l y s i segw kai o pathr en esmen. EGO KAI hO PATHR hEN ESMEN I and the Father one are. hEN (1520) · To be united most closely (in will, spirit), Jn x. 30 (Thayer <>). · In contrast to the parts, of which the whole is made up … J 10:30 (BAGD <>). · One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. in Galatians 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius.

So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18 <>). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30 <>). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21). Note hen used in 1 Corinthians 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in 17:11, 23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son).

They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (RWP <>). ESMEN (2070) · First person plural (present indicative active), “we are” · The present indicative asserts something which is occurring while the speaker is making the statement. O t h e r V i e w s C o n s i d e r e dJehovah’s Witnesses objection: The Watchtower argues that this verse cannot mean that Jesus is one in nature with the Father on the following basis: Jesus himself showed what he meant by being “one” with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, … that they may be one just as we are one.” Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were" (SYBT <>, p. 24). response: The Greek word “one” (heis) in reference to two persons or things may be used to specify many types of unions. It can signify “unity of purpose,” as the Watchtower suggests in 1 Corinthians 3:6ff (SYBT <>, p. 24), where Paul says that he and Apollos (as “planter” and “waterer”) are “one” in the purpose of saving and sanctifying God’s people. In John 17:21ff, however, “one” means more than simple “unity of purpose.” Jesus prays that the disciples may enjoy a fellowship of intimacy in Christian love so complete (“perfected in unity”) that the world would know that they belong to Christ and His Father. This is more than “one” in the sense of sharing common goals and plans.

It is a union so profound that it “perfects” or brings to full maturity and completion the believer’s love and fellowship with his brothers and sisters through their shared unity in Christ - just as Jesus Himself enjoys a perfect intimacy with His Father. Further, in verse 23, Jesus grounds this unity in His power to indwell His followers (“I in them”) while His Father indwells Him (‘You in me") and He His Father (“I in you”).<> The power to indwell His disciples, regardless of where they are, is a claim to Divine omnipresence, which further militates against the Watchtower’s position.

In Matthew 19:5, Jesus uses “one” to signify the spiritual union of man and woman in marriage - in God’s sight, the two have become “one."<> The significance of “one” in each of these verses is not determined by how it is used in other verse - it is derived from the immediate context. Thus, the fact that “one” may mean “one in fellowship” in John 17:21ff or “one in purpose” in 1 Corinthians 3:6ff has no bearing on how it should be understood in this verse.<> The context of John 10:30 fully supports the traditional understanding that Jesus is claiming equality with His Father in terms of Divine Prerogatives and Power. As noted in the Commentary, above, Jesus has just said that He gives eternal life to His sheep. He has equated His power to keep His sheep safely in His hands with His Father’s power to do the same. The Jews knew that the Father was greater than all, but they rebelled at Jesus saying that He and His Father shared this power to preserve the saints and - in this very sense - proclaiming that He was “one” with His Father. This view is also supported by the Jews’ reaction and Jesus’ subsequent statements, particularly those in vv. 37ff where He repeats His claims to do His Father’s works and enjoy a profound unity with Him.

If the Watchtower is correct, the only explanation for the Jews reaction is that they misunderstood Jesus, for they could have no objection to anyone being “one in purpose” with the Father. But given what Jesus has just said, how else could they take “I and the Father are one?” And the only explanation for Jesus’ previous and subsequent remarks, given that He knew the hearts of his listeners, is intentional deception of the highest order.

Jesus could give the Jews difficult answers to their questions, but it simply is not possible for Him to deceive them about the sense in which He was “one” with His Father. objection: The Watchtower continues: Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . 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” (Ibid.). response: When Calvin’s comments are taken in context, it is clear that while he does not understand this passage to be referring to Christ’s “unity in essence” (Greek: homoousias) - a technical term used by the “ancients” (that is, the Nicene church fathers) - Calvin does accept that Jesus is laying claim to God’s power and therefore is proclaiming His true Deity: · 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… · And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man. They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles… · Do you say that I blaspheme? The Arians anciently tortured this passage to prove that Christ is not God by nature, but that he possesses a kind of borrowed Divinity. But this error is easily refuted, for Christ does not now argue what he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, from his miracles in human flesh.

For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited him to us. Besides, we ought to remember what I have formerly suggested, that Christ does not, in this passage, explain fully and distinctly what he is, as he would have done among his disciples; but that he rather dwells on refuting the slander of his enemies. · And I am in my Father; that is, “I do nothing but by the command of God, so that there is a mutual connection between me and my Father.” For this discourse does not relate to the unity of essence, but to the manifestation of Divine power in the person of Christ, from which it was evident that he was sent by God.

Notes 1. The NWT translates the Greek preposition en (“in”) with the paraphrase “in union with” in this and several other verses that speak of Christ being “in” the Father or “in” His disciples. It is possible to interpret en in these verses as more or less meaning “in union with,” so long as it is understood to mean an intimate, personal relationship or spiritual union - not merely a general association or unity of goals and purpose. Thayer <>, for example, says of en in these verses: Of a person to whom another is wholly joined and to whose power and influence he is subject, so that the former may be likened to the place in which the latter lives and moves. So used in the writings of Paul and of John particularly of intimate relationship with God or with Christ, and for the most part involving contextually the idea of power and blessing resulting from that union. Other lexicons similarly stress that en in these verses means more than “in union with” in the sense of mere association: A marker of close personal association - ‘in, one with, in union with, joined closely to’ (Louw & Nida <>) The en of religious fellowship, often with einai (John 10:38; 1 John 2:5b, etc.) or menein (John 6:56; 1 John 2:6, etc.).

Reciprocity is frequently stressed (John 6:56; 1 John 3:24, etc.). The Father is brought into the relationship, either with Jesus (John 10:38) or with us (1 John 4:12 - 13).

We thus have a triangle (John 14:20; 17:21; 1 John 2:24). The formulas are neither ecstatic nor eschatological but mystical in a very broad sense with a strong personal and ethical reference (TDNT <>). This fully nuanced meaning is particularly true in John 14:17 - 18, where Jesus specifically equates the Spirit being “in” the disciples with the Spirit being “with” them, and then affirms that this indwelling is the means by which Jesus can affirm His promise not to leave His disciples as orphans. A similar thought permeates Jesus’ prayer in John 17:21ff. 2. “One” in this verse is the Greek mian, the feminine form of eis. This form is grammatically required because “one” modifies “flesh,” which is also feminine in Greek. 3. D.A.

Carson identifies the juxtaposition of texts like these as a “target rich” environment for interpretive errors: Consider the Arian efforts to link John 10:30…and John 17:20 - 23…. What gives interpreters the right to link certain verses together and not others?

The point is that all such linking eventually produces a grid that affects the interpretation of other texts. There may be fallacies connected not only with the way individual verses are interpreted, but also with the way several verses are linked - and then also with the way such a link affects the interpretation of the next verse that is studied! (Carson <>, Fallacies, p. 139).

John 10:34

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 10

34 - 3934 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ’ I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.

C o m m e n t a r yThis passage has been the object of much discussion, commentary, and debate among those with differing views about the Deity of Christ. Some claim that Jesus denies that He is God, taking for Himself the lesser title “Son of God.” Others argue that Jesus is asserting that He is God, co-equal with His Father. Still others say that Jesus is neither affirming nor denying His Deity, but rather is answering the specific charge of blasphemy (v. 33). Which of these views, if any, is correct? To answer this question, there are several rather complex issues to unravel. First, we must look to the context. What has Jesus just asserted that roused the Jews to such anger that they would accuse Him of blasphemy? What does He say following this passage?

Next, we must determine the meaning of the Old Testament verse Jesus is quoting in His defense. Then we must understand why Jesus quotes this passage - what is it about this passage that counters the accusation of blasphemy? Finally, we must put these pieces together to reconstruct Jesus’ argument and place it in context with what precedes and follows. Context This pericope begins with the Jews gathering around Jesus in the Temple portico, asking Him to tell them in plain terms if He is the Messiah (v. 24). Jesus answers by giving two reasons they should already know the answer to this question: His words and His works (v. 25). Jesus says that the reason they do not know He is the Messiah is not because He has failed to speak clearly or to manifest who He truly is through His miracles, but because they lack faith (vv. 25 - 26).

Jesus says that His sheep know Him and hear His voice, but the Jews are not His sheep (vv. 26 - 27). To this point, while Jesus may well have provoked his listeners to anger, there is nothing in what He has said that warrants the charge of blasphemy.

But then Jesus says, “I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish” (v. 28). Here Jesus claims for Himself the Divine prerogative of granting life to His sheep. The Jews knew that only YHWH gives life (Deut. 32:39), let alone eternal life. Then Jesus equates His power to keep His sheep firmly in hand with His Father’s power to do the same thing (vv. 28 - 29). The Jews knew that the Father was “greater than all,” but when Jesus said that He had the same power to preserve His sheep as His Father has, this was a clear claim to equality with God. Jesus further drives the point home with His assertion that He and His Father are “one” (v. 30 <>).

It is at this point - and with good reason, from their perspective as unbelievers - that the Jews prepare to stone Jesus. Jesus immediately challenges them by returning to one of the two reasons He has given for making clear that He is the Messiah - His works: “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning me?” (v. 32).

This is not an evasive response - and it does not follow that Jesus’ subsequent response will be evasive, either. The Jews reply that they are not stoning Him for His works, but for claiming to be God, which is blasphemy, according to their Law (v. 33). Some have argued that the Jews are accusing Jesus of nothing more than being “a god,” on the basis that the Greek word theos (“God”) lacks the article in this verse and on Jesus’ use of Psalm 82 (see below). While many nouns without the article in Greek are indefinite, many others are not. Context, once again, is our sure guide for determining meaning. If the Jews believed that “a god” could grant eternal life or was equal to the Father in the power to preserve the Sheep, there might be some warrant for theos in this verse being rendered “a god.” But this is manifestly not the case; while some might be called “gods,” in the OT, none were ever said to have Divine powers such as these.

Further, the Law against blasphemy did not pertain to those claiming to be ‘a god,’ but was specific to defaming the name of YHWH (Lev. 24:16), which any man did who claimed to be God or equated his power with YHWH’s power. The Jews would be risking their lives if they were to stone Jesus on the grounds of the Temple for anything other than a Law clearly defined in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Immediately after quoting Psalms 82 in His defense, Jesus again returns to the testimony of His works (vv. 37 - 38). Jesus then repeats what He has previously asserted in slightly different words: “The Father is in Me and I in the Father.” This further appeal to an intimate relationship in which the Father’s intimacy with the Son is no less than the Son’s intimacy with the Father incites the Jews beyond talking and Jesus must elude them and flee. It may be said here that if Jesus’ appeal to Psalms 82 is meant as nothing more than an answer to the charge of blasphemy, as some commentators allege, He has completely undermined His defense with new claims of unity and equality with His Father. It would seem untenable, given that He knew the hearts of his accusers, that Jesus would provoke the Jews with such a statement, unless it was a logical extension of what He has just said. The Meaning of Psalm 82 The words quoted by Jesus in John 10:34 are from Psalms 82:6. The pertinent section reads as follows: I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.

Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes.” There has been much debate about whom “you” refers. There are three common suggestions: 1) Angelic beings; 2) the Children of Israel at Sinai when they received the Law; 3) human judges or rulers who have judged unjustly.

Many who argue that ancient Israel practiced a form of polytheism or henotheism <> argue for option #1. They see this verse preserving an old tradition in which the pagan gods are judged by YHWH. The problem with this view is that Jesus’ appeal to this verse presupposes that it refers to human beings; if it refers to angels, the Jews could rightly ignore Jesus’ defense, for He is not an angel claiming the title “God,” but a man (v. 33). Jerome Neyrey makes an interesting case for option #2 (“I Said Ye Are Gods:” Psalms 82:6 and John 10 <>). Neyrey argues that extra-Biblical Jewish literature from shortly after the time of Christ indicates that the Jews thought that the Children of Israel had, in a sense, become “gods” when they received the Law. However, they almost immediately fell into idolatry and lost their divine status.

The chief problem I see with Neyrey’s otherwise provocative article is that there is simply no example of the Israelites being called “gods” in the Bible, and Jesus’ argument is based specifically on Scripture which “cannot be broken.” In my view, Jesus’ reference is unlikely, on the one hand, to rely on Psalms 82, and on the other, on a Midrashic interpretation of it. Option #3 is, on the whole, the most likely.

In the immediate context, the “sons of the Most High” are said to judge, albeit unjustly (v. 2). There is probable Biblical precedent for calling human judges “gods” (Exodus 22:8, 9; Judges 5:8,9). The judges were “gods” in the sense that the “word of God came” to them as a Divine commission to perform a duty on earth that ultimately belongs only to God. The judges, then, parallel Jesus - though to a lesser degree; for He received a Divine commission par excellence and every work He does is that of the Father (cf., 5:19 <>ff). Jesus’ Use of Psalm 82<> There are two important points to raise when considering why Jesus quotes this particular Psalm in His defense: 1) The Jews base their charge of blasphemy on what they see as Jesus’ self-proclamation of Deity: “You being a man make yourself out to be God” (v. 33); and 2) Jesus’ use of Psalm 82 must be consistent with the overall answer that Jesus is giving the Jews to their challenge to say “plainly” whether He is the Messiah (v. 24). Regarding the first point, we may say that Jesus’ use of Psalm 82 refutes the foundation of the Jews’ accusation.

The judges in Psalms 82 do not “make themselves” gods, but rather the divine title is given to them by God, on the basis of their commission (“to whom the Word of God came.”). In affirming that He is the Messiah, Jesus uses this general principle to declare that His divine title (“the Son of God”) was not of His own proclamation, but comes as the result of the Father’s commission (“sanctified and sent into the World;” cf., Mark 1:11; Luke3:22).

Regarding the second point, Jesus cannot be simply using an ad hominem argument to evade the charge of blasphemy<> because both before and after verses 34 - 36, He is claiming far more than merely being “a god” in the sense the Judges were “gods.” The judges in Psalms 82 are not said to grant eternal life to their followers, nor to be equal to the Father in their power to hold them fast. If Jesus were making an ad hominem argument, He would be essentially saying, “You don’t know your own Scriptures - I am simply calling myself ’the Son of God’ in the same way God calls the judges in Psalms 82 ‘gods’ and ‘sons of the Most High.’” The Jews could simply respond, “We know what God called the judges - but you are not claiming to be ‘a god’ like the judges - you are claiming to be far more than they! You have claimed a blasphemous unity with God unlike any exampled in our Scriptures, let alone Psalms 82!” The same can be said of Jesus’ title, “Son of God.” If Jesus meant to say that His divine title is less than the judges’ title (that is, that ‘Son of God’ is a less exalted title than “a god”), the Jews could rightly reject His answer as equivocation. Jesus is defending His statements prior to verse 34. Thus, “Son of God” must be viewed as meaning the same thing as One who grants eternal life, who holds His sheep in a grip as powerful as His Father’s, and who is One with the Father. Indeed, Jesus knew well what the Jews would make of this title - the Jews had accused Him before of using this title to make Himself “equal” with God (5:18 <>).

Jesus’ subsequent statement, which again repeats His claim to profound unity with His Father, and which the Jews understand as confirming their accusation, makes clear that Jesus is using Psalms 82 to establish the Biblical basis for the exclusive claims He is making. There is, of course, no “Biblical basis” in the OT for the specific divine title, “The Son of God,” nor for the specific claims Jesus is making for Himself.

The judges of Psalm 82 are called “gods” on far less merit than Jesus. Jesus is using Psalms 82 to establish a general principle - namely, that it is not blasphemous for one with a divine commission to be called by a divine title. Having established this point beyond dispute (“the Scripture cannot be broken”), He then establishes the basis for His unique divine title in His correspondingly higher divine commission (“whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world”). Jesus’ title and claims are, therefore, included within the general principle, and He cannot legitimately be accused of blasphemy. The Argument in Context The Jews have asked Jesus to plainly say if He is the Messiah. We may summarize His response as follows:“You should already know the answer to this question: My words and my works tell you plainly who I am.

The reason you don’t know who I am is because you do not believe. My sheep hear my voice and know me, but you are not my sheep.

I grant eternal life to my sheep, and no one can snatch from my hand those that the Father gives me. My Father is greater than all and no one can snatch my sheep from my Father’s hand - my Father and I are One!“At this point, the Jews understand that Jesus is making exclusive claims of equality with God, which (unless true!) are blasphemous. Jesus asks which works He has done that warrant the charge of blasphemy. The Jews reply that they are not stoning Him for His works, but for the words He has just spoken. Jesus replies as follows: “The Scripture says that God calls the judges in Psalms 82 ‘gods’ on the basis of their divine commission. Thus, since the Scripture cannot be wrong, it is not blasphemy for one with a divine commission to have a divine title.

I do not have a commission like the judges; I have an exclusive commission from my Father, for He set me apart and sent me into the world - to do the works you have seen, to say the words I have said, to grant eternal life to my sheep, to hold them fast in the same way my Father does, for He and I are One. Therefore, I have not committed blasphemy!

But even if you persist in denying my words, you should believe on the basis of my works, for they prove that the Father is in Me in the same way I am in Him: we are One!” The Jews, of course, do not believe Jesus - not because they misunderstand Him (such would suggest that Jesus was ineffective in communicating His identity, or was being consciously deceptive) - but because they lack faith. They are not Jesus’ sheep, as He has said. Thus, their rejection of Him lies in denial and self-deception, the root cause of all who reject God and His Christ (Romans 1:18 - 19). G r a m m a t i c a l A n a l y s i s`oti egw eipa qeoi este hOTI EGÔ EIPA THEOI ESTE I said gods you are. · I said (hoti ego eipa). Recitative hoti before a direct quotation like our quotation marks. Eipa is a late second aorist form of indicative with -a instead of -on. (RWP <>) · Ye are gods (theoi este). Another direct quotation after eipa but without hoti. The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Psalms 82:6 as calling them “ gods” (theoi, elohim) because they were God’s representatives. See the same use of elohim in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:9, Exodus 22:28.

Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way. (RWP <>) proV ouV o logoV tou qeou egeneto PROS hOUS hO LOGOS TOU THEOU EGENETO With whom the word of God was · To whom the word of God came (pros hous ho logos tou theou egeneto). The relative points to ekeinous, before. These judges had no other claim to the term theoi (elohim). (RWP <>) kai ou dunatai luqhnai `h grafh KAI OU DUNATAI LUTHÊNAI hÊ GRAPHÊ And cannot be broken the scripture · And the scripture cannot be broken (kai ou dunatai luthēnai hē graphē). A parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had to accept. Luthēnai is first aorist passive infinitive of luō, to loosen, to break. (RWP <>) O t h e r V i e w s C o n s i d e r e dJehovah’s Witnesses objection: The New World Translation renders John 10:33 as follows: The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god. Greg Stafford defends the translation “a god” in this verse as follows: The fact that Jesus answered the Jews by quoting Psalms 82:6 (where beings other than Jehovah are called “gods”) shows that they had accused him of claiming to be “a god,” not “God” (Stafford <>, p. 116). Mr. Stafford suggests that if the Jews had accused Jesus of being God, then his response in citing a text where others are not called God would not refute their point and would be essentially meaningless in reply. response: Mr. Stafford’s argument seeks to prove that the Jews accused Jesus of making Himself ‘a god’ solely on the basis of His reply to them. While Jesus’ reply is essential in understanding this passage, so is the surrounding context.

First, it is important to note that the Jews do not make their accusation on the basis of Jesus calling Himself “God’s Son.” Instead, it arises from the following claims: 1. He has implicitly agreed that He is the Messiah (v. 25). 2.

He has said that the Jews are not “His sheep,” to whom He will give eternal life (v. 28). 3. He has said that no one can snatch His sheep from His hand (v. 28). 4. He has said that His Father is “greater than all” (v. 29). 5. He has said that no one can snatch His sheep from His Father’s hand (v. 29). 6. He has said that He and His Father are one (v. 30). Now, I could agree that the Jews might have thought Jesus was making Himself “a god” if somewhere in their Scriptures there was ‘a god’ who had equated Himself to YHWH in this manner.

But nowhere do we find ‘a god’ saying anything like these claims. Jesus says that He is the one who grants eternal life; He places Himself on equal footing with His Father - who is “greater than all” - in claiming that He will keep His sheep firmly in hand; He has claimed to be “one” with His Father.

This last cannot be a mere claim to “unity of purpose,” for even the Jews would say that they are “one with God” in this regard. For the Jews, Jesus’ statements were claims to Divine prerogatives rightly belonging only to YHWH. Furthermore, the specific accusation is blasphemy; I am unaware of any Biblical definition of blasphemy that deals with claims about being ‘a god.’ Unless Mr. Stafford can provide proof otherwise, this fact supports the traditional interpretation - that is, that the Jews accused Jesus of making Himself God. This interpretation is further supported by Jesus’ subsequent remarks, in which He reaffirms his Unity with His Father in slightly different terms (v. 38). Had the accusation been merely that He was making Himself “a god,” and if Jesus knew the hearts of His listeners, why does Jesus further incite them with another provocative statement He knew they would misunderstand?

Is He trying to mislead them? On the other hand, if Jesus is answering their challenge by asserting His Deity, his further statement in vv. 37ff simply amplifies the point; knowing their hearts, He pushes the point home - “I’m answering your question directly: I am the Messiah, and all that that title entails - but you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.” objection: In personal correspondence, Mr.

Stafford has argued as follows: Hence, Jesus replies [to] the accusation, telling them that if those against whom the word of God came can be called gods, then surely the one sent by God can be called a god (per the Jews’ argument), or in parallel thought, God’s Son: Sons of the Most High (Psalms 82) = gods (plural) God’s Son (John 10) = a god (singular) response: While I agree with the first statement, I do not believe the second is logically sound. I would rephrase his equations as follows: sons of the Most High (Psalms 82) = gods (plural) a son of the Most High/God = a god (singular) It does not follow that “a son = the Son.” Mr. Stafford’s argument is, in fact, a logical fallacy known as “affirming the consequent."<> The link Mr. Stafford forges between the ‘sons of the most High’ in Psalms 82 and “God’s Son” in John 10 is not quite the one Jesus does. If Mr. Stafford were right, the Jews could simply answer: “Hey, no fair, Jesus!

We know that in some contexts, beings other than God can be called ‘gods,” but you weren’t claiming to be ‘a god’ or “a son of God” in that sense; you were claiming the prerogatives of the true God just now! Don’t just toss an ad hominem argument our way - you are committing blasphemy, and Psalms 82 doesn’t get you off the hook!” The title “God’s Son” must mean essentially the same thing as “I and the Father are one” and “no one can snatch them out of my hands / no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hands.” In other words, it must be understood as making the same claim to Deity as the statements to which the Jews are reacting.

Mr. Stafford argues on the basis that Jesus’ argument must be a meaningful response to the Jews. I agree. Thus, Jesus cannot be claiming something less than His previous statements, or less than those that follow - all of which caused the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy. Indeed, in John 5:19 <>ff, we find the Jews reacting in much the same way to Jesus’ statement that God is “his own Father.” With this in mind, we may rephrase Mr. Stafford’s equations as follows: sons of the Most High (Psalms 82) = gods (plural) God’s Son (John 10) = equal with God (John 5:19) (singular) Jesus cannot turn to an OT passage in which one who is commissioned by God is called the Son of God.

But He can point to a passage that establishes the general principle that it is not blasphemous for one with a divine commission to be called by a divine title (“sons of the Most High;” “gods”). Jesus’ own title, the Son of God, is justified by His commission par excellence, because it is included within the Scriptural principle He has just established.

Notes 1 For a detailed analysis of Jesus’ use of Psalm 82, see W. Gary Phillips, “John 10:34-26: An Apologetic Study,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 584 (1989) <>. I am indebted to Phillips’ study throughout this next section. 2. Robertson is typical of those advocating this view: “As Jews (and rabbis) they are shut out from charging Jesus with blasphemy because of this usage in the O.T. It is a complete ad hominem argument” (RWP <>). D.A. Carson argues: “Although it is ad hominem - i.e., it does not require Jesus to subscribe to the same literal exegesis as his opponents - it is not for that reason silly” (Carson <>, p. 399). In my view, if Jesus uses an exegesis contrary to the Jews, He has not effectively answered them.

It would allow the Jews to reject His answer on the grounds of equivocation - that is, that He now claiming that “the Son of God” means no more than “sons of the Most High” in Psalms 82. I think it better to understand Jesus as establishing a general principle that the Jews would have to agree with, on the basis of their acknowledgement that “the Scripture cannot be broken.” 3. This fallacy may be illustrated as follows: If I am in Toledo, I am in Ohio. I am in Ohio, therefore I am in Toledo (not necessarily; I might be in Cleveland). Similarly, if one is the Son of God, one is a son of God. But that does not mean that “a son of God” is the same thing as “the Son of God.” The “gods” in Psalms 82 are “sons of the Most High,” but that does not make them the Son of God.