John 10:30–34

Footnotes

1. 72 Grk “I and the Father.” The order has been reversed to reflect English style.
2. 73 The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν (hen esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).
3. 74 Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Here the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders. See the notes on the phrases “Jewish people” in v. and “Jewish leaders” in v. .
4. 75 Grk “Jesus answered them.”
5. 76 Or “good works.”
6. 77 Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Here again the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders. See the notes on the phrase “Jewish people” in v. and “Jewish leaders” in vv. , .
7. 78 Grk “answered him.”
8. 79 Or “good work.”
9. 80 This is the first time the official charge of blasphemy is voiced openly in the Fourth Gospel (although it was implicit in John 8:59).
10. 81 Grk “and because.”
11. 82 Grk “you, a man, make yourself to be God.”
12. 83 Grk “answered them.”
13. 84 A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being—and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?