Believe What The Works Tell You About Jesus (John 10:22-41) Series

There are four reasons to understand the Judeans' charge here as being, that Jesus is making himself "a" god, and not "the" God. One grammatical, three contextual:

(1) Every time that "God" is the direct object of the verb (an accusative), and immediately follows the verb (normal word order), everywhere else in the book (with the partial exception of 20:17, where it's modified by "my" and not straightforward), it's always "the God." If the Judeans had wanted to say that Jesus is claiming to be "the" God, there is an easy way to do it-- the way it's done everywhere else in the gospel.

(2) Throughout the gospel of John, Jesus calls God "the/his Father," and he calls himself "the son" (John 5:18-26). Judeans understand that Jesus is referring to God as his Father; they talk about God the same way (John 8:41).

Their problem with Jesus, is that Jesus claims sonship in an exclusive sense. Jesus is God's son, in a way that they are not (reading John 5:18 with John 8:41). But it's clear that Jesus and the Father are "distinct" from each other. They are a unity, working together, but it's not like Jesus is the Father, or the Father is Jesus. It's more like when you are dealing with the king's son, you are dealing also/actually with the king. [That said, we still need to keep in mind Thomas's confession in 20:28: "The God of me, and the Lord/Master of me."] So it seems unlikely that the Judeans would accuse Jesus of being "the" God.

(3) John 5:18:

"For this reason, then, even more, the Judeans were seeking to kill him,

because he not only was breaking the Sabbath,

but also, his own Father, he was calling the God,

equal himself making with the God."

In John 5, the Judeans want to kill Jesus because he is claiming an equality with the God. As if Jesus thinks there are two thrones in heaven, and Jesus is his Father's equal. I think this is basically the same thing as John 10. They think Jesus is lifting himself up, and claiming to be divine when he is not. They think he's just a man, like them. And only a man.

(4) Jesus' response, which we are about to read, makes more sense if Jesus heard "a god." His quotation of Psalm 82 shows that the idea of multiple "gods" (elohim) is biblical.

(5) This isn't really an argument. But Francis Moloney takes a similar position. That "god" here functions as an adjective, essentially-- "a divine being." [That said, Moloney doesn't really take Psalm 82 at face value.]

Jesus' response is long, and complicated, running from verse 34-38. Let's read the whole thing, and then try to unpack it:

(34) Jesus answered them,

"Isn't it written in your law that,

'I said, Gods/gods, you are'? (Psalm 82:6)

If, those ones, he called 'Gods'/'gods'--

-toward whom the word/Word of God came,

-and it can't be broken-- the Scripture--