Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods
34. in your law ] ‘Law’ is here used in its widest sense for the whole of the Old Testament; so also in Joh 12:34 and Joh 15:25; in all three places the passage referred to is in the Psalms. Comp. Joh 7:19 , 1Co 14:21. The force of the pronoun is, ‘for which you profess to have such a regard:’ comp. Joh 8:17. On the Greek for ‘is it written’ see on Joh 2:17.
I said, Ye are gods ] The argument is both fortiori and ad hominem. In the Scriptures (Psa 82:6) even unjust rulers are called ‘gods’ on the principle of the theocracy, that rulers are the delegates and representatives of God (comp. Exo 22:28). If this is admissible without blasphemy, how much more may He call Himself ‘Son of God.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
34 38. Christ answers the formal charge of blasphemy by a formal argument on the other side.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Jesus answered them – The answer of Jesus consists of two parts. The first Joh 10:34-36 shows that they ought not to object to his use of the word God, even if he were no more than a man. The second Joh 10:37-38 repeats substantially what he had before said, left the same impression, and in proof of it he appealed to his works.
Joh 10:34
In your law – Psa 82:6. The word law here, is used to include the Old Testament.
I said – The Psalmist said, or God said by the Psalmist.
Ye are gods – This was said of magistrates on account of the dignity and honor of their office, and it shows that the Hebrew word translated god, elohiym, in that place might be applied to man. Such a use of the word is, however, rare. See instances in Exo 7:1; Exo 4:16.
Joh 10:35
Unto whom the word of God came – That is, who were his servants, or who received their dignity and honor only because the law of God was intrusted to them. The Word of God here means the command of God; his commission to them to do justice.
The scripture cannot be broken – See Mat 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is, If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word god elohiym as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It cannot, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.
Joh 10:36
Whom the Father hath sanctified – The word sanctify with us means to make holy; but this is not its meaning here, for the Son of God was always holy. The original word means to set apart from a common to a sacred use; to devote to a sacred purpose, and to designate or consecrate to a holy office. This is the meaning here. God has consecrated or appointed his Son to be his Messenger or Messiah to mankind. See Exo 28:41; Exo 29:1, Exo 29:44; Lev 8:30.
And sent into the world – As the Messiah, an office far more exalted than that of magistrates.
I am the Son of God – This the Jews evidently understood as the same as saying that he was equal with God. This expression he had often applied to himself. The meaning of this place may be thus expressed: You charge me with blasphemy. The foundation of that charge is the use of the name God, or the Son of God, applied to myself; yet that same term is applied in the Scriptures to magistrates. The use of it there shows that it is right to apply it to those who sustain important offices (see the notes of Joh 10:34-35). And especially you, Jews, ought not to attempt to found a charge of blasphemy on the application of a word to the Messiah which in your own Scriptures is applied to all magistrates. And we may remark here:
- That Jesus did not deny that he meant to apply the term to himself.
- He did not deny that it was properly applied to him.
- He did not deny that it implied that he was God. He affirmed only that they were inconsistent, and were not authorized to bring a charge of blasphemy for the application of the name to himself.
Joh 10:37
The works of my Father – The very works that my Father does. See Joh 5:17; My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. See the note on that place. The works of his Father are those which God only can do. As Jesus did them, it shows that the name Son of God, implying equality with God, was properly applied to him. This shows conclusively that he meant to be understood as claiming to be equal with God. So the Jews naturally understood him Joh 10:39, and they were left with this impression on their minds.
Joh 10:38
Believe the works – Though you do not credit me, yet consider my works, for they prove that I came from God. No one could do them unless he was sent of God.
Father is in me … – Most intimately connected. See Joh 5:36. This expression denotes most intimate union – such as can exist in no other case. See Mat 11:27; Notes, Joh 17:21.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 34. Is it not written in your law] The words which our Lord quotes are taken from Ps 82:6, which shows that, under the word law, our Lord comprised the Jewish sacred writings in general. See also Joh 12:34; Joh 15:25.
Ye are gods?] That is, judges, who are called elohim. That judges are here meant appears from Ps 82:2, &c., and also from what follows here. And this is probably the only place where the word is applied to any but the true God. See Parkhurst under the root .
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This was written, Psa 82:6. The whole Scripture of the Old Testament, being wrote by holy men, inspired of God, and directive of mens conversation before men, and towards God, is sometimes called the law, Psa 19:7. It was spoken concerning magistrates, and the governors of Gods people, who, being Gods deputies and vicegerents, intrusted to execute the judgments and vengeance of God, are dignified with the name of gods.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
34-36. Is it not written in yourlawin Ps 82:6,respecting judges or magistrates.
Ye are godsbeing theofficial representatives and commissioned agents ofGod.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law,…. In the law which was given unto them, of which they boasted, and pretended to understand, and interpret, even in Ps 82:6; for the law includes not only the Pentateuch, but all the books of the Old Testament: it is an observation of one of the Jewish doctors t, that
“with the wise men of blessed memory, it is found in many places that the word law comprehends the Prophets and the Hagiographa.”
Among which last stands the book of Psalms; and this may be confirmed by a passage out of the Talmud u; it is asked,
“from whence does the resurrection of the dead appear,
, “out of the law?””
It is answered,
“as it is said in Ps 84:4: “Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will still praise thee, Selah; they do praise thee”, it is not said, but “they will praise thee”; from hence is a proof of the resurrection of the dead, “out of the law”.”
The same question is again put, and then Isa 52:8 is cited, and the like observation made upon it. Moreover, this is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they introduce another citing a passage of Scripture thus w, , “is it not written in your law”, De 4:9, “only take heed to thyself”, c. so here the Scripture follows,
I said, ye are gods? which is spoken to civil magistrates, so called, because of their authority and power and because they do, in some sort, represent the divine majesty, in the government of nations and kingdoms. Many of the Jewish writers, by “gods”, understand “the angels”. The Targum paraphrases the words thus:
“I said ye are accounted as angels, as the angels on high, all of you;”
and to this sense some of their commentators interpret it. Jarchi’s gloss is, ye are gods; that is, angels; for when I gave the law to you, it was on this account, that the angel of death might not any more rule over you: the note of Aben Ezra is, “and the children of the Most High”: as angels; and the sense is, your soul is as the soul of angels: hence the x Jew charges Christ with seeking refuge in words, that will not profit, or be any help to him, when he cites these words, showing that magistrates are called gods, when the sense is only, that they are like to the angels in respect of their souls: but let it be observed, that it is not said, “ye are as gods”, as in Ge 3:5, but “ye are gods”; not like unto them only, but are in some sense gods; and besides, to say that they are like to angels, with respect to their souls, which come from above, is to say no more of the judges of the earth, than what may be said of every man: to which may be added, that this objector himself owns, that judges are called , “gods”, as in Ex 22:9; the cause of both parties shall come before , “the judges”; and that even the word is used in this sense in this very psalm, from whence these words are cited, Ps 82:1, “he judgeth among” , “the gods”; and both Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret this text itself in the same way, and observe, that judges are called gods, when they judge truly and aright: all which is sufficient to justify our Lord in the citation of this passage, and the use he makes of it.
t R. Azarias in Meor Enayim, c. 7. fol. 47. 1. u T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2. w T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 32. 2. x R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 51. p. 440, 441.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Is it not written? ( ;). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of (as in 2:17) in place of the usual . “Does it not stand written?”
In your law ( ). From Ps 82:6. The term (law) applying here to the entire O.T. as in John 12:34; John 15:25; Rom 3:19; 1Cor 14:21. Aleph D Syr-sin. omit , but needlessly. We have it already so from Jesus in 8:17. They posed as the special custodians of the O.T.
I said ( ). Recitative before a direct quotation like our quotation marks. is a late second aorist form of indicative with – instead of –.
Ye are gods ( ). Another direct quotation after but without . The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Ps 82:6 as calling them “gods” (, elohim) because they were God’s representatives. See the same use of elohim in Exod 21:6; Exod 22:9; Exod 22:28. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Is it not written [ ] . More strictly, does it not stand written.
Law [] . The word is sometimes used in the New Testament of other scriptures. See Joh 12:34; Joh 14:25; Rom 3:19; 1Co 14:21. I said, etc. The reference is to Psa 82:6.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Jesus answered them,” (apekrithe autois ho lesous) “Jesus responded to them,” to those Jews who had charged Him with blasphemy because He had asserted that He was the Son of God, Joh 10:33; in candor, truth, and honesty.
2) “Is it not written in your law,” (ouk estin gegrammenon en to nomo humon) “Is it not having been written in your law,” asserted, certified in your law, Mosaic law, thus recognizing the Divine authority of Old Testament Scriptures.
3) “I said, ye are gods?” (hoti ego eipa theoi este) “That I said, you all are gods?” alluding to Psa 82:6; Rom 13:1. The term “gods” is used, not to refer to the one true God, or to idol gods, but to the appointed leaders of the Jewish people. The Psalms are therefore referred to in a very general sense as the law.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
34. Is it not written in your Law? He clears himself of the crime charged against him, not by denying that he is the Son of God, but by maintaining that he had justly said so. Yet he adapts his reply to the persons, instead of giving a full explanation of the fact; for he reckoned it enough for the present to expose their malice. In what sense he called himself the Son of God he does not explain fully, but states indirectly. The argument which he employs is not drawn from equals, but from the less to the greater.
I said, You are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honorable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others, is far more worthy of this honorable title. Hence it follows, that they are malicious and false expounders of Scripture, who admit the first, but take offense at the second. The passage which Christ quotes is in Psa 82:6,
I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High;
where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse their authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action. He reproaches them that, unmindful of Him from whom they received so great dignity, they profane the name of God. Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, because they are God’s ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world. We must attend to the mode of expression:
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(34) Is it not written in your law?Comp. Note on Joh. 8:17. The passage here quoted is in Psa. 82:6, but the term Law is here used in a wide sense for the whole of the Old Testament. There are other examples of this usage in Joh. 7:49; Joh. 12:34; Joh. 15:25; Rom. 3:19; 1Co. 14:21.
I said, Ye are gods?In the Hebrew of the Psalm, as in the Greek here, the pronoun is emphatic. I myself said, Ye are gods? The words are probably to be understood in the Psalm as spoken by God, who sits in judgment on the judges whom He had appointed, and gives the name of gods (Elohim) as representing Himself. See Exo. 4:16; Exo. 7:1; Exo. 18:15; Exo. 21:6; Exo. 22:8; Exo. 22:28; Deu. 1:17; 1Sa. 28:13; Psa. 8:5; Psa. 45:6; and comp. Perownes Notes on Psalms 82, and article God, in Kittos Biblical Cyclopdia, Ed. 3, vol. ii., p. 144 et seq.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
34-38. In this answer Jesus shows, 1. That it is perfectly sustained by the Old Testament, that the term god is and may be extended down from God to one “being a man,” so that it is no blasphemy to suppose that it includes his human person. But, 2. He has a supernatural claim to the divine, running upward they know not how high. 3. His works, performed in unison with his words, authenticate from God whatever claims he presumes to make. If his works are from God, then his words are from the Father. And, then, his sonship is demonstrated. Thus does this argument furnish a bridge for these Jews to admit his divinity; a bridge leading upward, indefinitely high; nay, if so be, infinitely. Nothing but their unchanging preference for a human hero-Messiah prevents their ascending the bridge he presents with the step of a firm faith.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
34. Law gods In the term law, here, the Psalms are, according to Jewish custom, included. Jesus here quotes Psa 82:6: “I have said ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High; but ye shall die like men.” The words are addressed to judicial magistrates of Israel or of the earth. Similarly Homer styles the Grecian princes god-born. As they are divinely authorized, have a divine work of justice to do, are the images of the divine Judge, so the term of divinity is conferred upon them. Government is from God; and every good man sustains the magistrate with a respect for his office.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? (Psa 82:6). If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world ‘you are blaspheming’ because I said I am the Son of God?’
We should note that ‘Law’ is here used in the wider sense of the Scriptures, God’s instruction. This was an accepted usage. The description ‘ your Law’ brings out the great emphasis that they themselves placed on them. Jesus is emphasising that what He is arguing comes from their own Law, the Law that they claim to treasure so much. In the Psalm the phrase pictures God sitting among the judges of Israel, or their angelic representatives, calling on them to deal justly and protect the weak. Thus they were, as it were, seen as standing in the place of God, as ‘elohim’, heavenly representatives (compare how angels were called the ‘sons of the elohim’ in Gen 6:2; Gen 6:4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7). They were the council of God, giving God’s verdict, speaking God’s words. They were, as it were, ‘gods’ for they acted in the name of God.
So even weak, mortal men (and the Psalm makes clear in Joh 10:7 that is what they were) could be called ‘gods’ (acting like ‘elohim’, a word sometimes also used of angels as the heavenly court) when they heard His word and acted and spoke in His name, because they were acting in unity with God and as the earthly counterpart of the heavenly court. Furthermore God was delivering His word through them. Now if the application of the term ‘god’ to such a person was not to be looked on as blasphemy, how could its application to the teacher and judge come from God?. Indeed it was Scriptural. (Jesus reinforced this by reminding them that by their own interpretation not a single passage of Scripture (he graphe) could be broken but must be held in its entirety).
Not that Jesus was not just comparing Himself with these men. He is revealing Himself as the One ‘whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world’. He is not just a man, even a man in authority, hearing God’s word and passing it on. He has been uniquely set apart by God and sent into the world to deliver God’s word. Indeed, as we know from John 1, He is God’s word. He is the Son of God, possibly a Messianic title but if so given deeper significance by Jesus. Thus He has even more right to have the term ‘god’ applied to Him. Why then do they accuse Him of blasphemy?
So the contrast between these judges and Jesus is apparent. The word came to them, but in contrast He IS the Word. The judges were selected from among the people and consecrated, but Jesus was uniquely prepared above and consecrated, and then sent. The judges were ‘sons of the Most High’ but He is the true Son of God, the ‘only-begotten’.
It is clear that Jesus was now seeking to stop their precipitate action by confusing them with words and making them think again. On the whole the time for reasoning with them was past. He had made clear the truth about Himself and they had rejected it. So let them go away and think over all He had said. Perhaps then they would see that He was in fact greater than the judges who receive God’s word and act in God’s Name, greater than the kings of Judah who stood in for God on earth. But that has been revealed in His teaching and His ‘works’, not by the application to Him of the term ‘God’. Yet He did not want them just to go away and say ‘Oh, he is just a man after all’ so He continued.
‘And the Scripture cannot be broken.’ Jesus argument only held if this was so. Thus He is confirming His own view that every word of Scripture is reliable and cannot be ‘broken’, that is, cannot be altered or changed or repudiated in any way. Thus does He confirm His own belief in the full plenary verbal inspiration of the word of God. (To suggest that He spoke ‘Ad hominem’ would be to accuse Him of deceit in order to obtain His purpose, for the whole of His argument depended on the truth of the statement).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 10:34. Is it not written, &c. The Jews divided the Old Testament in various manners; sometimes, as we have before observed, into the writings of Moses, the Psalms, and the prophets; and at other times only into the law and the prophets; comprehending by the prophets, only the writings of those who were properly so called; but under the law, not only the five books of Moses, but likewise the Psalms, Proverbs, and historical books. Our Lord alludes to this latter division; for the words are found in Psa 82:6. I have said, Ye are gods. The Jewish magistrates were God’s deputies in an especial manner, because the people whom they governed were his peculiar people, and because in many instances they were expressly called by him to undertake the fatigues of government, and had an afflatus, or inspiration of the Spirit, for that end. Thus the high-priests derived their dignity from God, and were possessed of the Urim and Thummim, by which they inquired of the Lord; and for any of the people to rebel against the sentence of the high-priest or judge, pronounced by Urim, was justlyreckoned rebellion against God, and punished with death, Deu 17:8-13. When Moses chose the seventy elders to assisthim in the distribution of justice, God put his Spirit upon them, and they prophesied, Num 17:13. Joshua, who succeeded Moses by divine appointment, is said to have been a man in whom the Spirit was, Num 27:18. Many of the judges were raised up by God, and had his Spirit; and when Saul was anointed king, the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied, 1Sa 6:10. See on Psa 82:6.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 10:34-36 . In Psa 82:6 , unrighteous authorities of the theocratic people not angels (Bleek), nor yet heathen princes (De Wette, Hitzig) whose approaching destruction, in contrast to their high dignity , is intended to stand out, are called gods , agreeably to the old sacred view of rulers as the representatives of God, which was entertained in the theocratic nation. Compare Exo 21:6 ; Exo 22:8 ; Exo 22:28 . From this, Jesus draws the conclusion a minori ad majus , that He might call Himself God’s Son without blasphemy. He is surely far more exalted than they ( , etc.); and nevertheless had designated Himself, not , as though wishing to make a God of Himself, but merely . . [67]
] Spoken of the Old Testament generally, of which the law was the fundamental and authoritative portion. Comp. Joh 12:34 , Joh 15:25 ; Rom 3:19 ; 1Co 14:21 .
] as in Joh 8:17 .
] whom? Jesus takes for granted as known.
] namely, (compare afterwards ), not God (Hengstenberg).
] to whom , not adversus quos (Heinsius, Stolz), which does not follow from the context. There is nothing to warrant the supposition that the prophets are also referred to (Olshausen).
] Neither the (Cyril), nor the revelations of God (Olshausen, comp. Godet), but the saying of God just mentioned : , etc. This saying belongs, not to the time when the Psalm was written, but to that earlier period (the period of the induction of the authorities into their office, comp. Psa 2:7 ), to which God, the speaker, points back.
, etc.] This clause, though containing only an auxiliary thought, and not a main point of the argumentation (Godet), has been without reason treated as a parenthesis; whereas both in point of structure and sense it is dependent on : and it is impossible , etc. So also Ewald, Godet, Hengstenberg.
] The Scripture (consequently, also, that saying of the. Psalms) cannot be loosened, i.e. cannot be deprived of its validity . Comp. Mat 5:19 ; Joh 5:18 ; Joh 7:23 ; Herod. 3. 82; Plat. Phaedr . p. 256 D; Gorg . p. 509 A; Deu 31:12 , 700, Deu 31:13 . The auctoritas normativa et judicialis of the Scriptures must remain unbroken. Note, in connection herewith, the idea of the unity of the Scriptures as such, as also the presupposition of their theopneustia .
, etc.] That is surely something still greater than the . , addressed to authorities when they were installed in their offices. In this question, which is placed in the apodosis, and which expresses surprise, the object, which is correlate to the of Joh 10:35 , is very emphatically placed at the commencement; and ( you people ) is placed over against the inviolable authority of the Scripture.
] hath consecrated , a higher analogue of the consecration to the office of prophet (Jer 1:5 ; Sir 45:4 ; Sir 49:7 ), denoting the divine consecration to the office of Messiah , who is the (Joh 6:69 ; Luk 4:34 ). This consecration took place on His being sent from heaven, and immediately before His departure (hence .), in that the Father not merely “ set apart ” the Son to the work (as though the word had been used; Hofmann, Schriftbew . I. p. 86; comp. Euth. Zigabenus, Hengstenberg, and Brckner), but also conferred on Him the Messianic and , with the fulness of the Spirit appertaining thereunto (Joh 3:34 ), and the power of life (Joh 5:26 ), and the of grace and truth (Joh 1:14 ).
] The reply which, in view of , etc., we should have expected to be in the oblique construction ( or , comp. Joh 9:19 ), passes over with the increasing vivacity of the discourse into the direct construction; compare Joh 8:54 , and see Buttm. Neuf. Gr . p. 234 [E. T. p. 272].
] because I said . He had said it indirectly in Joh 10:29-30 .
[67] Hengstenberg incorrectly remarks: “He accepts the charge, ‘Thou makest thyself God.’ ” On the contrary, He does not enter on it at all, but simply justifies the predicate, “ Son of God,” which He had assumed for Himself. But Beyschlag also is wrong when he says (p. 106): “That which Jesus here affirms concerning Himself ( , etc.) might equally have been affirmed by every prophet.” On such a view, no regard would be paid to the relation of and .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Joh 10:34-38 . Jesus justifies Himself from the reproach of blasphemy by defending His assertion that He was the Son of God the words of Joh 10:30 which had excited the opposition amounted to this from the Scriptures (Joh 10:34-36 ); He then sets forth the unity affirmed in Joh 10:30 as credibly attested by His works (Joh 10:37-38 ).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Ver. 34. In your law ] So he calls it, to show that there was no necessity on his part to prove what he delivered by any Scripture, since he was to be believed on his bare word, ; but for their sakes only he did it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
34. ] here is in its widest acceptation, the whole O.T., as ch. Joh 12:34 ; Joh 15:25 . The Psalm (82) is directed against the injustice and tyranny of judges (not, the Gentile rulers of the world (De Wette), nor, the angels (Bleek)) in Israel. And in the Psalm reference is made by to previous places of Scripture where judges are so called, viz. Exo 21:6 ; Exo 22:9 ; Exo 22:28 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 10:34 . On this occasion He merely shows that even a man could without blasphemy call himself “Son of God”; because their own judges had been called “gods”. , “Is it not written in your law, I said ‘ye are Gods’?” In Psa 82 the judges of Israel are rebuked for abusing their office; and God is represented as saying: “I said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High”. “The law” is here used of the whole O.T. as in Joh 12:34 , Joh 15:25 , Rom 3:19 , 1Co 14:21 . “If it [that is the nominative to is proved by the two following clauses, although at first sight it might be more natural to suppose the nearer and more emphatic supplied the nominative] called them gods, to whom the word of God came,” that is, who were thus addressed by God at their consecration to their office and by this word lifted up to a new dignity “and that they were so called is certain because Scripture cannot be denied or put aside then do you, shutting your eyes to your own Scriptures, declare Him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world to be a blasphemer because He said, I am God’s Son?” The a fortiori element in the argument lies in this, that the judges were made “gods” by the coming to them of God’s commission, which found them engaged otherwise and itself raised them to their new rank, whereas Jesus was set apart by the Father and sent into the world for the sole object of representing the Father. If the former might be legitimately called “gods,” the latter may well claim to be God’s Son. The idea of the purpose for which Christ was sent into the world is indicated in the emphatic use of ; and this is still further accentuated in Joh 10:37 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
law. The usual division is “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms “(Luk 24:44). Here the Psalms are included in the Law. Compare Joh 15:25.
gods. See App-98. Quoted from Psa 82:6. Psa 82:38
unto. Greek. pros. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
34.] here is in its widest acceptation,-the whole O.T.,-as ch. Joh 12:34; Joh 15:25. The Psalm (82) is directed against the injustice and tyranny of judges (not, the Gentile rulers of the world (De Wette), nor, the angels (Bleek)) in Israel. And in the Psalm reference is made by to previous places of Scripture where judges are so called, viz. Exo 21:6; Exo 22:9; Exo 22:28.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 10:34. , answered) The Jews had said, Thou sayest that Thou art God, and indeed God by nature (for their blindness lay in joining this Godhead with the manhood): and Jesus acknowledge [as His claims] this Godhead of nature, without denying His manhood, and does not lower His claims by His subsequent language, but defends them: comp. Joh 10:39, Therefore they sought again to take Him, as to the question in what sense the Jews understood His words. From these considerations a reply can easily be made to Artemonius, P. ii., c. 1. They had surrounded Jesus, Joh 10:24; and so in this menacing attitude were threatening Him with death; yet His wisdom and presence of mind remains unshaken.-) I, God; for from the in the first person, the inference is drawn, to whom the word of God came, in the following ver.-, gods) Psa 82:6; the parallel is added; , sons of the Most High. Therefore also at Joh 10:36,[288] there ought to be understood , God, to , the Son of God.[289] The Jews did not admit Jesus to be God in any sense: therefore, in refutation of them, He quotes the psalm. But a comparison drawn from a psalm does not prove that the Godhead of Christ approaches nearer to the godhead of mortals, than to the Godhead of the eternal Father; for He did not ever quote this passage of the psalm to believers.
[288] To complete the correspondence of the parallels.-E. and T.
[289] God, the Son of God, answering respectively to gods and children of the Most High.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 10:34-36
Joh 10:34-36
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?-Jesus quotes this to show that their own law recognizes those as gods who executed the law of God that came to them. As Gods servants, they enforced his law and the Psalmist calls them gods. If this be so, why should it be regarded as blasphemy when one specially sent from God into the world calls himself the Son of God? [The word sanctify means to make holy or set apart. It is here used in the latter sense.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
in: Joh 12:34, Joh 15:25, Rom 3:10-19
I said: Psa 82:1, Psa 82:6, Psa 82:7
gods: Exo 4:16, Exo 7:1, Exo 22:28, Psa 138:1
Reciprocal: Exo 12:12 – gods 1Sa 28:13 – gods ascending Psa 146:6 – keepeth truth Mat 9:13 – go Luk 4:4 – It Joh 8:17 – also Rom 3:19 – what things 1Co 8:5 – that 1Co 14:21 – the law Gal 4:21 – the law
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
In reply to the charge of the Jews, Jesus made a quotation from Psa 82:6. Incidentally, let us note that Jesus called the book of Psalms your law, which tells us that the writings of Moses do not contain all of “the law” of the Jews. In this citation are the words ye are gods; they were addressed to the Jews of old to whom the law was sent, and in such a form of speech they were called gods. There is nothing strained in attributing such a title to God’s people. The name God is a family one and includes every member of that family. Every member of the Jones family is a Jones, and likewise every member of the family of God is a God in the sense of relationship. It was in that sense the passage in Psalms was used.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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:” Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Psalm 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 EG 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 Ps 82:6 as calling them gods (theoi, elohim) because they were God’s representatives. See the same use of elohim in Ex 21:6; Ex 22:9, Ex 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 LUTHNAI h GRAPH And cannot be broken the scripture And the scripture cannot be broken (kai ou dunatai luthenai he graphe). A parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had to accept. Luthenai is first aorist passive infinitive of luo, 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 Psalm 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 (Psalm 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 (Psalm 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 Ps 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 Ps 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 (Psalm 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 Psalm 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 Ps 82 are “sons of the Most High,” but that does not make them the Son of God.
Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary
Joh 10:34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? The quotation is from Psalms 82 (the word law being used, as in chap. Joh 15:25 and some other places, for the Old Testament scriptures generally), I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. The psalm is a reproof of unrighteous judges. Its opening words bring before us God judging among the gods,that is; among the judges, for the sacred name is in other passages (Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8, and probably Exo 22:28) given to those who were to the people the representatives of God, and gave judgment in His name. In following verses of the psalm as far as Joh 10:7, it is supposed by some that God Himself is the Speaker (comp. Psalms 1.). If so, the words Ye are gods are here quoted as if spoken by God; and in the next verse he called must be similarly explained. It seems more likely, however, that the rebuke of the judges injustice is administered by the psalmist in his own person; and in Joh 10:35 the meaning will either be that the law called, or the speaker implied in the emphatic I, viz. the psalmist writing under inspiration from God and expressing His mind. In any case the pronoun I is strongly marked,I myself, who utter the rebuke and had foretold the punishment, had borne witness to the dignity of the position of the judge.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here our Saviour by a two-fold argument vindicates himself from the imputation of blasphemy, in assertion himself to be God.
1. Because the Old Testament gave to magistrates and judges the title of gods, I have said ye are gods Psa 82:6. Now Christ argues strongly from the less to the greater, thus: “If judges and magistrates may be called gods, because they are commissioned by him, and derive their authority from him, how much more is that title due to me, who was sanctified, separated, and ordained for a Mediator, and appointed to the work of redemption, before I came into the world, and consequently was God from all eternity?”
This place the Socinians (whose professed adversaries of our Saviour’s godhead) produce to prove, that Christ was not God by nature, but only in respect of his sanctification and mission. It is a certain truth, that he was not therefore the Son of God, because sanctified and sent. His sanctification was not the ground of his sonship; but his sonship was the cause of his sanctification. Christ was not therefore God’s Son, because he was sanctified and sent; but he was therefore sanctified and sent, because he was his Son. He was a Son before he was sent, even from eternity, otherwise, it must have been said, that God sent him to be his Son, and not that God sent his Son. This supposes him before he was sent out have been actually his Son, as certainly he was, from before the foundation of the world. Pro 8:25 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the world was.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 34-36. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law I said ye are gods? 35. If it called them gods to whom the word of God was addressed,and the Scripture cannot be broken,36 do you say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest! because I said, I am the Son of God?
This argument has often been presented as an implicit retractation of the expressions in which Jesus seemed to have affirmed His divine nature. In this sense, He is supposed to say: Mere creatures have been called gods, because they represent God in some one of His functions, that of judge, for example; this is the only sense in which I have ascribed divinity to myself. But Jesus would thereby, at the same time, retract all His earlier testimonies, the meaning of which we have established. Jesus is occupied solely, in this first part of His reply, Joh 10:34-36, with repelling the accusation of blasphemy. With this end in view, He reasons as follows: The Scripture called mere human beings gods, as being invested with an office in which they were the representatives and organs of God on earth; were I then nothing more than a mere man, sent to accomplish a divine work, I should not deserve, according to the Scripture itself, to be treated as a blasphemer for having called myself Son of God.
As an argument ad hominem the reasoning is irrefutable. Nevertheless, it still leaves room for this objection: Jesus called Himself God in an altogether different sense from that in which the Scripture gave this title to the Israelite judges. But a second point is to be observed here: it is the gradation in Joh 10:35-36 : If the Scripture did not blaspheme in calling the persons gods to whom the revelation was addressed, how can I have spoken blasphemy in declaring myself God, I, whom God sends into the world as His revelation itself? This altogether different position of Jesus as regards the divine revelation justifies the higher sense in which He attributes to Himself the title of God. The monotheism of the Bible differs absolutely from the cold and dead Deism which Jewish orthodoxy had extracted from the sacred books, and which separates the Creator by a gulf from man.
This petrified monotheism is the connecting link between degenerate Judaism, Mahometanism and modern rationalism; but it is only a gross caricature of the Scriptural conception. Every theocratic function exercised in the name of Jehovah, who has conferred it, places its depositary in living connection with the Most High, makes him participate in His inspiration, and constitutes him His agent. Thereby the man, king, judge or prophet, becomes relatively a manifestation of God Himself. At that time, the house of David shall be as Elohim, as the angel of the Lord. Zec 12:8. The Old Testament is, in its deepest tendency, in a constant advancing progress towards the incarnation, the crowning-point of the increasing approximation between God and man. This is the true basis of the reasoning of Jesus: If this entire course has nothing in it of blasphemy, the end in which it issues, the appearance of a man who declares Himself one with God, has in itself nothing in contempt of the majesty of God.
The quotation is derived from Psa 82:6; and the term law denotes here, as in Joh 7:49, Joh 12:34, etc., the entire Old Testament, not as a denomination a potiori parte, but rather inasmuch as this whole book formed a law for the Israelitish thought and life. On the expression your law, see on Joh 8:17. Asaph, in this Psalm, addresses the theocratic judges. Joh 10:1 describes their greatness, in virtue of their function as organs of the divine justice, which has been intrusted to them. God Himself sits in the midst of them; it is from Him that their judgments emanate. Then in Joh 10:2-5, Asaph contrasts the sad reality, the injustice of the actual judges, with the ideal greatness of their function. In Joh 10:6, he returns to the idea of the first verse, that of their official dignity. The words: I said, refer undoubtedly to the expression of Asaph himself in Joh 10:1 : God is present in the congregation of God. And thus he prepares for the transition to the warning of Joh 10:7-8, in which he reminds them that they will themselves be one day judged, for an account will be demanded of them respecting this divine function with which they had been clothed. Jesus draws from the words of the Psalmist a conclusion a minori ad majus, precisely as in Joh 7:23. The basis of the reasoning is the admitted principle: that the Scriptures cannot blaspheme. By those to whom the word of God is addressed, Jesus evidently understands those judges, to whom the Holy Spirit addresses Himself, saying: You are …The parenthetical remark: And the Scripture cannot be broken, shows the unlimited respect which Jesus feels for the word of Scripture.
Let us suppose that it was the evangelist who invented all this argument; could he, the so-called author of the theory of the Logos, have resisted the temptation to put into the mouth of Jesus here this favorite title by which he had designated Him in the Prologue? This would be the altogether natural gradation: The law calls them judges to whom the Word is addressed; how much less can I be accused of blasphemy, who am the Word itself, when I attribute to myself the title of God! John does not yield to this temptation; it is because it did not exist for him, since he limited himself to giving a faithful report of what his Master had said. Jesus designates Himself as Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent. The first expression might strictly refer to a fact in the earthly life of Jesus, such as that of the miraculous birth (Luthardt) or that of the baptism (Weiss). But in that case it would be necessary to refer the following expression: sent into the world, to an act later than the one or the other of these two events: according to Weiss, for example, to the command to begin His public ministry. Or it would be necessary to admit a retrograde order in the position of the two terms sanctify and send, which is quite as unnatural. The term to send into the world can of course only designate the mission which He received when He came from God to fulfill His work as Redeemer; and the term to sanctifymust consequently designate the celestial act by which God specially set Him apart and consecrated Him for this mission. It was to this commandment, previous to the incarnation, that we were already referred by the expressioncommandment, , used in Joh 5:18; comp. 1Pe 1:20.
There was a consulting together between the Father and the Son before the coming of Jesus to the world, of which He Himself formulates the result when He says: I am come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (Joh 6:38). How great is the superiority of such a being to all those to whom the divine revelation addresses itself here below! In reproducing the charge alleged against Him, Jesus passes to the direct discourse: Thou blasphemest. It is the lively repetition of the accusation, as it was still sounding in His ears. The following words: because I said, depend not on thou blasphemest, but on you say. The title Son of God evidently here reproduces the substance of the declaration of Joh 10:30 : I and my Father are one. This example shows again how erroneous it is to see in the title Son of God the indication of a function, even of the highest theocratic function. Taken in this sense, this term does not involve absolutely any blasphemy at all. These Jews who had just addressed to Him the question: If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly, evidently could not have found in this title of Christ a blasphemy. And, as for Jesus, He is here thinking, as Joh 10:30 shows, on something altogether different from His dignity as Messiah. That is only a corollary following from His altogether peculiar union with God. He is only endeavoring therefore to awaken in the hearts of His hearers the feeling of His close relation to God, being certain, not only that the conviction of His Messiahship will naturally result from it, but also that in this way only that idea will not be erroneously conceived. Hence what follows:
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 34
Psalms 82:6.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Jesus proceeded to point out that the Jews’ authoritative revelation, the Old Testament, proved His claim. He cited Psa 82:6 to show that the Old Testament used the word "god" (Heb. elohim) to refer to persons other than God Himself. If God spoke of people as "gods," why should the Jews object if Jesus implied that He was a god?
The identity of the people whom God addressed as gods in Psa 82:6 is debatable. The most popular and probable view is that they were Israel’s judges who were functioning as God’s representatives and so were in that sense little gods (Psa 82:1-4; cf. Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8). [Note: Blum, p. 312.] Another view is that these gods were angels. [Note: J. A. Emerton, "Some New Testament Notes," Journal of Theological Studies 11NS (1960):329-36.] This seems unlikely since the contrast in view in the psalm is between God and mere man, not angels. A third view is that God was addressing the whole nation of Israel when He gave them the Law. He spoke to the people as His sons and in this sense meant that they were gods. [Note: Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 398-99.] However the contrast between God as the true Judge (Psa 82:1; Psa 82:8) and the people whom He rebuked for judging falsely (Psa 82:2-7) seems to favor the first view.