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.