Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewn you of my Father; for which work of them do ye stone me?
Stones are already in the hands of the crowd when Jesus speaks. He answers with no threat. He asks one question: which of His good works are they stoning Him for? That question makes His attackers name what they hate, and it shows what unbelief really is.
His claim to be one with the Father is what provoked the stones. Their answer is violence — and it goes nowhere.
The Lord's words had such living power. They ended with "I and My Father are one" (not "My Father and I"). In answer to the Jews' question in verse 24, those words have surely and fully proved that He is the Christ. But they react, not only in doubt, but in bitter hatred, and take up stones to stone Him. Yet they have no power to carry out their evil plan. His word, calmly and simply spoken, has power that holds them helpless.
They understood Him perfectly. Their problem was not the evidence but the lowly form in which grace had come.
The Jews understand well enough, and take up stones to stone Him: but the might of His presence stills them. He calmly appeals to them, asking which of the many good works He has shown them from the Father they are stoning Him for. They could not deny the power or the goodness. But they could not believe the grace that had brought the Son of God among them in such lowly form.
Jesus does not only say the works were many. He says where they came from. That link is His proof.
In perfect calmness the Lord appeals to the many good works that He had shown them from the Father. He thus connects His works with the Father as a proof that He had come from the Father. Had they then any fault to find with those works that show the goodness of the Father and the glory of Christ as the Son?
Every good thing has one source. That is where His works came from.
First of all we must realise that everything good has its ultimate source in God. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). The Lord Jesus, who revealed the Father here on earth, "went about doing good" (Acts 10:38), and so He could say to the Jews, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone Me?"
The works did not stand alone. His words came with them, and both had the same source.
Along with the words were the wonderful works of the Father, and they were works of a kind the world had never seen before. They also bore witness to the divine origin of the words. The words and the works were together… When they sought to stone Him, He asked them which of the good works He had shown them from the Father they were stoning Him for. They replied that it was not for the works, but the words! Surely the origin of the one was evidence of the origin of the other! They were too blind to see this.
They could not name one bad work. So the hatred had no cause in Him at all.
And yet despite His acts of love, and His words of grace, they rewarded Him evil for good, and hatred for His love (Ps. 109:5). Truly He could say, "They hated me without a cause." Sadly, there was plenty of cause for hatred, but no cause in Him. There was no cause in man to call out Christ's love, and no cause in Christ to call out man's hatred.
- Source — Every good work of Jesus came from the Father. The goodness they were about to stone was the Father's own.
- Proof — Those works were His evidence. They showed that He had come from the Father.
- Agreement — His words and His works said the same thing. To accept the works and reject the words is blindness, not reason.
- Silence — His accusers could not name one work worth stoning. His question left them with nothing to say.
- Cause — Man had plenty of cause for hatred. Christ gave none. They lifted stones against pure goodness.
The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Stones are already in the crowd's hands, because they heard Jesus claim to be God. Their charge raises the real question: was He blaspheming, or telling the truth about Himself?
The charge was not a misunderstanding.
They were right in saying that Jesus was a man; they were not wrong in understanding that He claimed to be God. But this was Satan's suggestion, working on man's unbelief in everything beyond his own senses and mind. The suggestion is that He who was God would never lower Himself to become man and accomplish redemption, not even in love to men and for the divine glory. Was it incredible that God should stoop so low for such worthy ends?
His humanity was never their problem. One writer shows what their admission is worth:
They were clear and decided about the Lord's real humanity. They said it without any hedging. They were right that He was a man. He had a body, He had a soul, He had a spirit — the three parts that make up a man (1 Thess. 5:23). No one who saw Him on earth, we suppose, doubted His real manhood. What made the Jews stumble was His claim to be a Divine Person. About His manhood the Christian faith is sure; and Christians, taught by God, own it fully and thankfully. How near that brings Him to us!
They were answering the words He had just spoken: "I and the Father are one." That claim is more than sharing a purpose.
The Lord's statement was a clear affirmation of His deity. He was not only one with the Father in purpose, but one with Him in essence and being. In this the Son and the Father were inseparable: they were one. This was the issue when the Lord Jesus stood before their council. Put on oath by the High Priest to say whether He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, His plain answer was, "I am" (Mark 14:62). As a result of that statement He was again accused of blasphemy and condemned to death.
If they had misread Him, one sentence could have ended it. Instead He defends the claim from their own Scriptures.
If their interpretation had been wrong, the Lord would have corrected such a terrible mistake at once. He would have rejected the claim to Deity. He does neither. Instead, He confirms His claim by appealing to their own Scriptures. He condemns them out of their own mouths for refusing His claim to Deity. Quoting from Psalm 82:6, the Lord asks, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" God set apart men to be judges in Israel as His representatives, and His word came to them. Scripture calls them gods. Can it then be blasphemy for the Son to claim to be a divine Person — the Son whom the Father has set apart and sent into the world?
He let the charge stand. That leaves every reader with the choice the crowd faced.
If we believe that pure truth flowed from His lips, we must accept this word as it stands. We have no alternative; to refuse it is to brand our Lord as the supreme impostor of all time. It was a great declaration, and we must admit that for a man to make it opens up a tremendous question. If He was not what He said He was, those Jews were right when they took up those stones to stone Him for blasphemy. If He lied, He was neither God nor from God, for "it is impossible for God to lie."
The charge turns back on the accusers. They could not accept that God would stoop so low.
To their blinded and furious minds it was blasphemy for Him to say that He gave His followers eternal life, beyond the weakness or the power of any creature. It was blasphemy for Him to say that He and the Father were one. Yet this is the truth, so vital and necessary that no one who rejects it can be saved. His words were as good as His works, and even more important to man; and both came from the Father. He whom God sent, as John testified, spoke the words of God. It was they who blasphemed, denying Him to be God, who in grace to them stooped to become man.
The same truth that armed their hands is what steadies faith. Commenting on their words, one writer answers them in a single line:
In very truth, that He is so is our hope.
- Heard rightly. The accusers understood Him exactly: He was a man, and He was claiming to be God.
- Meant fully. "I and the Father are one" means one in essence and being. That same claim later condemned Him before the High Priest.
- Never withdrawn. He would have corrected a mistaken charge on the spot. Instead He proves it from Psalm 82.
- Only two verdicts. Either He is God, or He is the greatest impostor of all time, and the crowd was right to stone Him.
- Blasphemy reversed. The real blasphemy was theirs: they denied that He is God, when He had stooped in grace to become man.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
The Jews have picked up stones, charging Jesus with blasphemy for making Himself God. His reply reaches back to a single line in their own Scriptures. Why does that line settle the matter?
The words Jesus quotes come from Psalm 82, yet He calls them part of "your Law." He uses the term more widely than the five books of Moses.
The New Testament sometimes uses the term "law" for other parts of the Old Testament besides the five books of Moses. The Lord said, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" when the quotation was from the Psalms.
The word behind "gods" is Elohim. In the Psalm it describes men holding an office.
The Lord Jesus quoted Psalm 82 verse 6: "I said, You are gods." The word for "gods" in this verse is Elohim. In the Psalm, as elsewhere, it describes the men who were set to judge in Israel (Psa. 82:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28). They were God's representatives. Their task was to judge for the Lord, in His fear, and to apply the revelation God had given in His Word to the cases brought before them.
The title belonged to the office they held.
It is calling judges "gods" because they stood as sent in God's place and acted for God in their office. We know that all power is of God, and ought to be exercised in His righteousness. This eighty-second Psalm judges them.
He meets them on their own ground, without asserting what He is.
He reasons from the lesser to the greater, and the argument is decisive. Every Jew knew that their inspired books call judges elohim (gods) — Psalm 82, for instance. God commissioned those men and held them responsible to judge in His name. Scripture could use such a title of a mere magistrate, and its authority cannot be undone. The Father set His own Son apart and sent Him into the world. How unreasonable, then, to charge Him with blasphemy because He said He was God's Son! He is not affirming or proving here what He is. He only shows them, out of their own law, how perverse they are. They had not the least excuse while they claimed to hold to their law as divine. If God called the judges by His name because they were His representatives, how much more did that name belong to Him Whose place was unique?
Jesus never tells His accusers they have misread Him.
If they had read Him wrongly, the Lord would have corrected such a terrible mistake at once and rejected the claim to Deity. He does neither. Instead He confirms His claim by appealing to their own Scriptures. He condemns them out of their own mouth for refusing His claim to Deity.
Notice how narrow the ground of the argument is.
In John 10:34-36, the argument depends on a single word — gods. The Lord Himself appeals to that word as settling the point — an appeal to a single word in the Old Testament as authoritative and final.
And the line He quotes is not a famous one.
Our Lord is quoting what some might be tempted to call an obscure passage from the Psalms. It is simply an obvious explanation, men might say, of no great importance, and yet our Lord declares it cannot be ignored. It is a part of a perfect whole.
The aim of the answer was not persuasion.
You see He does not reason with the Jews to convince them, but to silence them.
And silenced they were, at least for the moment.
To this appeal to their Scriptures what could they say? "You, being a man, make Yourself God," was their accusation. That Psalm silenced them. They dropped the stones that they had just taken up.
- Their book. Jesus answers the stone-throwers from "your Law" — a phrase that here covers the Psalms, not only the books of Moses.
- Their word. "Gods" translates Elohim. Israel used it for judges who stood in God's place and answered to Him.
- Their logic. If Scripture calls mere judges by that title, the charge of blasphemy against the Father's sent One falls apart.
- Their Scripture. Jesus treats one word from an easily overlooked psalm as final — nothing in Scripture can be set aside.
- Their silence. He answered to stop their mouths, and the stones fell from their hands.
If he called *them* gods to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken),
Stones are already in the hands of the men listening to Him, and the charge is blasphemy: a man making Himself God. Jesus answers with one line from an old psalm, not a fresh claim. He rests the whole reply on a statement about the Bible itself.
Jesus makes His case from Israel's own Scriptures. If Scripture can hand God's own name to ordinary officials, the charge against Him collapses.
He meets them on their own ground with an argument from the lesser to the greater. That argument left His personal glory untouched... Every Jew knew that their inspired books call judges elohim (gods) — Psalm 82, for instance. God commissioned these men, and they were responsible to judge in His name. If Scripture could use such a title of a mere magistrate, the charge against Him makes no sense. And the authority of Scripture cannot be undone. He said He was God's Son. The Father had set Him apart and sent Him into the world. To call that blasphemy is unreasonable.
The men in Psalm 82 were Israel's judges. The title was not flattery. It marked the office they held and the word God sent to them.
This quotation of the elohim shows, I think, that it applies to Jews in the strict sense. The law there calls the judges elohim in so many words. That makes the Lord's rebuke most powerful... It also shows what that word elohim means in the law, and how foolish the dispute is between judges and God. The law calls judges "gods" because they stood as sent in God's place and acted for God in their office.
The line He picks is not a famous prophecy. It is a passing explanation of a title. That is what makes His comment so strong.
Our Lord is quoting what some might be tempted to call an obscure passage from the Psalms (Psalm 82:6)... Our Lord says this Scripture cannot be broken — it cannot be set aside. Men might say it is only an obvious explanation of no great importance. Yet our Lord declares that no one can ignore it. It is part of a perfect whole... Every word and syllable is woven into this Scripture, and you cannot tear out one part without tearing the whole.
The word "Scripture" here comes with no limits and no exceptions.
Nothing can be more definite, nothing wider in reach, than this. He does not say that one passage or another is guided or guarded because it matters more. He says "Scripture," as Scripture — "Scripture cannot be broken." Take the statement that "In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them." Take any other statement, however small it looks to us. If Scripture makes it, its truth is certain.
The base of His argument is narrow. He does not appeal to a chapter or a theme, but to one noun.
In John 10:34-36 the argument depends on a single word — gods. The Lord Himself appeals to that word as settling the point. He treats one word in the Old Testament as authoritative and final.
His hearers had understood Him to be claiming to be God. He lets that reading stand.
If their interpretation had been wrong, the Lord would surely have corrected such a terrible mistake at once. He would have rejected the claim to Deity. He does neither. Instead He confirms His claim by appealing to their own Scriptures. He condemns them out of their own mouths for refusing His claim to Deity.
There is a limit to what He is doing here. He answers a charge; He does not open a discussion.
They took up stones to stone Him. And you see, He does not reason with the Jews to convince them, but to silence them.
His use of Scripture here was no isolated debating move. It was how He lived.
It is as if our Lord declared that He stood or fell with the word of God. If it were not true, neither was He. And so indeed it must be. He who is holy and true has given His approval to all Scripture as true. By it He met Satan and defeated him. He appealed to it in His teaching. He quoted from it again and again in all His conflicts with the unbelieving Pharisees and others.
- Word came. God's word reached the judges of Israel, and they stood in His place in office. That alone is why Scripture calls them "gods" — a borrowed name, not a shared nature.
- Word written. Jesus treats that small, passing line as impossible to set aside. Every word is woven into Scripture; pull one thread and the whole tears.
- Word enough. One noun in one verse carries the whole argument. The Lord treats a single word as authoritative and final.
- Word in person. Men who only received the word could carry that title. So the charge of blasphemy against the One the Father set apart and sent is unjust. He never takes the claim back.
- Word trusted. Christ staked Himself on the written Word. He used it against Satan, in His teaching, and in every dispute. If Scripture were not true, neither was He.
do ye say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God?
The Jews had charged Jesus with blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God. He does not soften the claim. He answers them from their own Scriptures. His reply turns on one word: older translations read "sanctified" where the ESV has "consecrated." What does it mean for the Father to set someone apart and send Him?
The word cannot mean the Father made the Son holier. One writer asks the question and answers it:
What a remarkable thing that the Father had sanctified Him. Could He ever be more holy than He was? God forbid the thought. It means simply this: the Father had set apart His blessed and only Son, and sent Him into this world to bring God to man, to reveal God, and to make God known here. It was a totally new position for the Son of God to occupy.
The order of the words matters. He was set apart first, then sent:
… the Father set apart the Son for Himself long before He came into the world. There was also a public side to it, when the Holy Spirit came from heaven and rested on Him. It is wonderful to think of the Father setting the Son apart to do His will, and to see how the sending of the Son does that will. This is but one aspect of the coming of the Son, for not only was He sent, He came of His own will.
The reason lay not in any need of His own, but in ours:
To be sanctified is to be set apart to God. Here in John 10 the Lord says that the Father set the Son apart for one express purpose: to come into the world so that we might have life through Him. It was not for any need of His own or because of any requirement upon Him. It was on our behalf, because in the end it would lead Him into the work that He did at Calvary for our blessing.
Their own law gives the title "god" to a mere judge. Jesus reasons from that smaller case to the greater:
He meets them on their own ground with an argument from the lesser to the greater, and it left His personal glory untouched… If Scripture can use such a title of a mere magistrate, and its authority cannot be broken, then the charge is unreasonable. They accused the One whom the Father set apart and sent into the world of blasphemy, because He said He was God's Son! He is not stating or proving what He is here. He is only proving them stubbornly wrong from their own law.
The judges held a borrowed title. The Son held a place that was His own:
He had claimed His own divinity in the plainest way: "I and the Father are one." They said this was making Himself God… He was not merely one "to whom the word of God came." He was the One whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world. He could say, "I am the Son of God."… To the others the word of God had only come: "I have said, You are gods." They had no dignity at all in themselves. They were earthly men, whom God had raised to an official dignity. But He was the SON… The moment God took back the dignity He gave them, they would die like ordinary men. They had no essential, inherent power or dignity. But He was one with the Father.
If they had misread Him, this was the moment to say so:
If they had understood Him wrongly, the Lord would surely have corrected such a terrible mistake at once and denied the claim to Deity. He does neither. Instead the Lord confirms His claim from their own Scriptures. He condemns them out of their own mouth for refusing His claim to Deity… Men were set apart to be judges in Israel, as God's representatives, and the word of God came to them. If Scripture calls them gods, can it be blasphemy for the Son, whom the Father has set apart and sent into the world, to claim to be a divine Person?
- Set apart — "Sanctified" means given a new position, not made holier. He could never be more holy than He already was.
- Set apart first — The Father set Him apart long before sending Him. The Spirit resting on Him made it public. He was sent, and He also came of His own will.
- Set apart for us — Not for any need of His own, but for ours: that we might have life through Him. That path led to Calvary.
- Set apart above them — The judges wore a borrowed title and would die like other men. The Son's dignity was His own. He was one with the Father.
- Set apart, not stepping back — Charged with blasphemy, He answers from their own law. He never takes back the claim they understood.