22

Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,

23

and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade.

24

The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,

26

but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

27

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

28

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

29

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

30

I and the Father are one."

31

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,

32

but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

34

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods'?

35

If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--

36

what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?

37

Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

38

But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

39

Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

(John 10:22-39 (NIV), courtesy of Bible Gateway)

First, let's get one thing clear: Jesus considered himself to be the one and only Son of God, as is clear from many other references.

Now, what of the incident in John 10?

Jesus said 'I and the Father are one'. His opponents reply,

"We are stoning you... for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Now what is often missed is that there are TWO ways that he could have defused this charge of blasphemy:

(1) By showing that he did not claim to be God; or

(2) By showing that it is not NECESSARILY blasphemy to claim to be God.

Which did he do? It was not (1) (as many people seem to suggest), but (2)!

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods'? If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?"

Surely the thrust of Jesus' reply is clear: if it's not blasphemy for part of their Law (Psalm 82) to call certain people 'gods', surely it is not blasphemy if applied to Jesus.

The obvious corollary is this: Jesus is more worthy to be called 'god' than any of the addressees of Psalm 82. Why is he greater? Because he called himself:

the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world

And then in the next sentence, he put it even stronger:

I am God's Son

This passage is also notable for what Jesus did NOT say. If Jesus wanted to avoid the charge of blasphemy by denying he was God (defense (1) above), he could very easily have done so. But he did not. Rather, he showed (by quoting Psalm 82) that the claim to be God was not IN ITSELF blasphemous. His reply could be paraphrased, "It is not blasphemy to call someone 'god' if they deserve the title."

He then showed how he DID deserve the title, by describing himself as "the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world", "God's Son", and by saying "the Father is in me, and I in the Father".

Jesus' opponents understood this claim clearly, so they tried to arrest him anyway (v.39). They followed his reasoning alright, they just didn't believe the claims he made about himself. Therefore they reasoned (correctly, if Jesus' claims were false), that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy.