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.
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not;
At the Feast of Dedication, in the temple, Jesus called Himself the Son of God, and His hearers picked up stones to kill Him. Instead of arguing back, He hands them a test they can carry out themselves — and He is willing to lose the case if the evidence fails.
Jesus gives His opponents permission to disbelieve Him. He sets one condition, and He rests His whole claim on it.
This was the closing point of faith. His dealings with the people ended here, on ample and conclusive evidence. The evidence of the Son is in the Father's works: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham." Our Lord submits Himself to the same evidence: "If I am not doing the works of my Father," whether in power or love, "good works," "then do not believe me. But if I do"; how could I be anything but the Son? If I do them, the evidence is complete.
Jesus does not say "my works" but the works of His Father. That points back to how He lived on earth: He never acted on His own.
He was not here to act as God, independently, for He said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing." He had come to act only in complete dependence on the Father. Yet no one but He who was equal with the Father could have said, "For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." He was acting from His conscious place in the Father's love and in perfect communion with Him. So all His works were the Father's works, the expression of the Father's nature and will, flowing from this divine communion. His works revealed the Father.
His hearers had watched Him work, and the kind of work He did was itself the proof.
To His persecutors He said, "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me." They could not deny those works of mercy, grace, love and power, done by the Righteous, Just, Holy and True. They showed the Father's Name. They made clear what the Father is to those who had eyes to see, and to our faith today as well. As we have said, He came in His Father's Name.
This verse is the negative half of a pair. The next verse completes it: if they will not believe His words, the works still stand as witness.
The works of His Father done by Him confirmed all this in the fullest way. In the power they displayed, they implied the Father abiding in Him, and He abiding in the Father in close communion. So there was enough witness to the truth of His claims. If they did not believe His words, they might at least believe His works.
This lower step did not lower who He is. And proof on its own never creates faith.
There was no denying the irresistible force of this appeal. The character of the works bore witness not only to Divine power, but to that power in the fullness of love. Whatever they thought of Him, the works were unmistakable, so that they might learn and come to know the unity of the Father and the Son. He was not weakening the dignity of His Person, or the truth of His words. He was pleading with them, and dealing with their consciences, by those works — works that attested the grace of God as much as the power. But self-will holds out against all proofs.
Anyone could watch these works and weigh them. That is what makes refusing Him so serious.
The miracles of our Lord appeal to man's senses. They produce both wonder and amazement, and so become a public witness to the greatness of the Worker. If the works of God in creation leave man without excuse, what of these mighty and mysterious workings of His power? … God is clearly seen in creation, and He has not left Himself without witness in the sphere of providence. So the voice of Immanuel brought the blessed God near to men: silencing the storm, removing disease, commanding demons and raising the dead — works which also appealed to reason.
- Tested. Jesus offers His enemies a fair test and accepts the risk: if the works of His Father are missing, do not believe Him.
- Sourced. They are the Father's works because the Son acted in complete dependence and communion, so everything He did revealed the Father.
- Merciful. The evidence He points to is mercy, grace, love and power — a witness to the Father's heart, not only to raw might.
- Lowered. When they refused His words, He offered a lower step: believe the works, and let them lead you back to the truth about His Person.
- Inexcusable. He met His own test in full, so unbelief shows self-will, not lack of proof.
but if I do, even if ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know [and believe] that the Father is in me and I in him.
In Jerusalem the Jews had picked up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy. He does not soften His claim. Instead He points them to what they had watched Him do. The works themselves say who He is. They show a unity between the Father and the Son that belongs to no one else.
Jesus offers His hearers a test and then puts Himself under it. He lets what He does settle the question of who He is.
Our Lord accepts the same test: "If I am not doing the works of My Father" — whether in power or in love, "good works" — "then do not believe Me. But if I do"; how could I be anything else? If I do, the evidence is complete: "even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know." The works prove it beyond question. They show one thought, one purpose, one design, one glory. Everything about their character showed that the Father dwelt in Him, and He in the Father.
The works were not bare displays of strength. Their character carried the argument, and it pressed on the conscience.
There was no denying the irresistible force of this appeal. The character of the works bore testimony not only to divine power, but to power in the fullness of love. Whatever they thought of Him, the works were unmistakable. By them they might learn and come to know the unity of the Father and the Son. He was not weakening the dignity of His Person or the truth of His words. He was pleading with them and dealing with their consciences by works. Those works attested the grace of God no less than His power. But self-will holds out against all proofs.
Jesus makes two statements here, not one. Each half points to something different.
The works implied that the Father was abiding in Him, seen in the power He displayed. They also implied that He was abiding in the Father, seen in His close communion. So there was enough witness to the truth of His claims. If they would not believe His words, they might at least believe His works.
The second half carries the greater weight. It is a claim to Sonship, not merely to God dwelling in a man.
He claimed the glory of Sonship in His works. They were the evidence of what He was from the Father. They showed to faith that the Father was in Him. And the Father did not simply dwell in Him as a Man: He was in the Father too. Both are alike true — "the Father in Me, and I in Him." This is a blessed sentence.
Telling unbelievers to start with the works is itself an act of kindness. Yet the miracles were never meant to stand alone as the ground of faith.
Man does not like to come to the light, because his deeds are evil. So God in grace gives evidences, miracles if you like, when the revelation of the truth is there... And this is great grace... Where faith was founded only on miracles, the Lord did not own it; there was nothing moral in it. But He did give miracles to help men believe the holy truth of love.
They objected to His words and left His deeds alone — as if the two came from different sources.
They said it was not for the works, but for the words! Surely the origin of the one bore witness to the origin of the other! They were too blind to see this... the Lord showed that their sin was inexcusable, for in these things they had seen and hated both the Son and the Father... Yet despite that hatred, the Son did the works of the Father. They displayed the Father's mercy, kindness, grace, compassion, tenderness and love, as well as His power. Faith could appreciate this and rejoice in it.
- Works as test. Christ names the test He is willing to be judged by: no works of the Father, no reason to believe Him.
- Works as witness. Their character testifies as much as their power — grace and love, not only might.
- Works as doorway. If His Person is too much to accept at first, He offers a lower step: start with what you saw Him do.
- Works as grace. Evidence is a mercy, not a debt God owes; but faith resting on miracles alone was never the faith He owned.
- Works as verdict. The goal is to know that the Father is in Him and He in the Father. Where people refuse that, self-will is the reason, not lack of proof.
They sought therefore again to take him; and he went away from out of their hand
Jesus has just pointed to His works as proof that the Father is in Him and He in the Father. They answer with one more try at seizing Him — so why can they never hold Him?
Their hostility changes shape here. Moments earlier they had picked up stones; now they try arrest instead. One writer explains what stopped the stoning.
To this appeal to their Scriptures what could they say? "You, being a man, make yourself God," was their accusation. The psalm He had quoted silenced them. They dropped the stones that they had just taken up, with which to stone Him for blasphemy. They would settle for arresting Him, if they could. Still they failed.
The ESV says He "escaped" from their hands. One writer finds that word too dramatic for what happened.
Unable to answer His words, "they sought again to take Him"; but He "went away from out" (not "escaped out of") their hand. Man had now fully shown himself: the light had shone in darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it. His guilt was shown by his refusal of the One the Father sent. His spiritual death was shown too: there was not the slightest response to the presence of God before their eyes in the person of His beloved Son.
Their rejection was now complete. So why did their plan fail?
So it was not that their unbelief was incomplete. It was that His time had not yet come. The Lord therefore retires until the moment appointed by God.
Earlier in this same chapter Jesus had said that no one takes His life from Him. Verse 39 is that statement in action.
No man takes my life from me! That means it was impossible for men to kill Him. In intent they did it; they spared no effort to bring Him down to death. But when they had done all, He laid down His life of His own will, as a sacrifice for sin. He did not die by the violence of men, nor by any natural cause.
Where He goes next matters as much as His leaving. They had already thrown out a man for confessing Him, and now the Shepherd goes out too.
So He went away beyond Jordan. Already they had cast out the man who had confessed Christ; now the Shepherd, utterly rejected by the nation, takes the outside place of reproach. In that outside place "many resorted to Him" and "many believed on Him there". So the Shepherd becomes the Leader of His flock outside the Jewish fold.
- Rejected. Their own Scriptures silenced them, so they dropped the stones. They still reached for Him.
- Restrained. They wanted Him and could not have Him. What held them off was not some faith left in them, but God's appointed time.
- Reserved. His death waited on His will, not theirs. No one took His life; He laid it down.
- Removed. He did not scramble out of danger. He walked out from their hand, and left them exposed: God stood in front of them and they did not respond.
- Received. Cast out by the nation, the Shepherd took the outside place, and there many believed. Rejection by the nation became gathering outside it.