John 10:34

10:34 Jesus answered, ¹  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ² 

John 15:25

15:25 Now this happened ³  to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without reason.’ ⁴ 

Galatians 3:24

3:24 Thus the law had become our guardian ⁵  until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous ⁶  by faith.

Galatians 4:21

An Appeal from Allegory

4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand the law? ⁷ 

[10:34]  ¹ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ² sn 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?

[15:25]  ³ tn The words “this happened” are not in the Greek text but are supplied to complete an ellipsis.

[15:25]  ⁴ sn A quotation from Ps 35:19 and Ps 69:4. As a technical term law (νόμος, nomos) is usually restricted to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT), but here it must have a broader reference, since the quotation is from Ps 35:19 or Ps 69:4. The latter is the more likely source for the quoted words, since it is cited elsewhere in John’s Gospel (2:17 and 19:29, in both instances in contexts associated with Jesus’ suffering and death).

[3:24]  ⁵ tn Or “disciplinarian,” “custodian,” or “guide.” According to BDAG 748 s.v. παιδαγωγός, “the man, usu. a slave…whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth…to and from school and to superintend his conduct gener.; he was not a ‘teacher’ (despite the present mng. of the derivative ‘pedagogue’…When the young man became of age, the π. was no longer needed.” L&N 36.5 gives “guardian, leader, guide” here.

[3:24]  ⁶ tn Or “be justified.”

[4:21]  ⁷ tn Or “will you not hear what the law says?” The Greek verb ἀκούω (akouw) means “hear, listen to,” but by figurative extension it can also mean “obey.” It can also refer to the process of comprehension that follows hearing, and that sense fits the context well here.