John 10:35

10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), ¹ 

John 10:34

10:34 Jesus answered, ²  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ³ 

John 1:12

1:12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name ⁴  – he has given the right to become God’s children

John 7:17

7:17 If anyone wants to do God’s will, ⁵  he will know about my teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority. ⁶ 

John 8:47

8:47 The one who belongs to ⁷  God listens and responds ⁸  to God’s words. You don’t listen and respond, ⁹  because you don’t belong to God.” ¹⁰ 

John 3:36

3:36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects ¹¹  the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath ¹²  remains ¹³  on him.

John 11:4

11:4 When Jesus heard this, he said, “This sickness will not lead to death, ¹⁴  but to God’s glory, ¹⁵  so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” ¹⁶ 

[10:35]  ¹ sn The parenthetical note And the scripture cannot be broken belongs to Jesus’ words rather than the author’s. Not only does Jesus appeal to the OT to defend himself against the charge of blasphemy, but he also adds that the scripture cannot be “broken.” In this context he does not explain precisely what is meant by “broken,” but it is not too hard to determine. Jesus’ argument depended on the exact word used in the context of Ps 82:6. If any other word for “judge” had been used in the psalm, his argument would have been meaningless. Since the scriptures do use this word in Ps 82:6, the argument is binding, because they cannot be “broken” in the sense of being shown to be in error.

[10:34]  ² tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ³ 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?

[1:12]  ³ tn On the use of the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuw + ei") construction in John: The verb πιστεύω occurs 98 times in John (compared to 11 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark [including the longer ending], and 9 times in Luke). One of the unsolved mysteries is why the corresponding noun form πίστις (pistis) is never used at all. Many have held the noun was in use in some pre-Gnostic sects and this rendered it suspect for John. It might also be that for John, faith was an activity, something that men do (cf. W. Turner, “Believing and Everlasting Life – A Johannine Inquiry,” ExpTim 64 [1952/53]: 50-52). John uses πιστεύω in 4 major ways: (1) of believing facts, reports, etc., 12 times; (2) of believing people (or the scriptures), 19 times; (3) of believing “in” Christ” (πιστεύω + εἰς + acc.), 36 times; (4) used absolutely without any person or object specified, 30 times (the one remaining passage is 2:24, where Jesus refused to “trust” himself to certain individuals). Of these, the most significant is the use of πιστεύω with εἰς + accusative. It is not unlike the Pauline ἐν Χριστῷ (en Cristw) formula. Some have argued that this points to a Hebrew (more likely Aramaic) original behind the Fourth Gospel. But it probably indicates something else, as C. H. Dodd observed: “πιστεύειν with the dative so inevitably connoted simple credence, in the sense of an intellectual judgment, that the moral element of personal trust or reliance inherent in the Hebrew or Aramaic phrase – an element integral to the primitive Christian conception of faith in Christ – needed to be otherwise expressed” (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 183).

[7:17]  ⁴ tn Grk “his will.”

[7:17]  ⁵ tn Grk “or whether I speak from myself.”

[8:47]  ⁵ tn Grk “who is of.”

[8:47]  ⁶ tn Grk “to God hears” (in the sense of listening to something and responding to it).

[8:47]  ⁷ tn Grk “you do not hear” (in the sense of listening to something and responding to it).

[8:47]  ⁸ tn Grk “you are not of God.”

[3:36]  ⁶ tn Or “refuses to believe,” or “disobeys.”

[3:36]  ⁷ tn Or “anger because of evil,” or “punishment.”

[3:36]  ⁸ tn Or “resides.”

[11:4]  ⁷ tn Grk “This sickness is not to death.”

[11:4]  ⁸ tn Or “to God’s praise.”

[11:4]  ⁹ sn So that the Son of God may be glorified through it. These statements are highly ironic: For Lazarus, the sickness did not end in his death, because he was restored to life. But for Jesus himself, the miraculous sign he performed led to his own death, because it confirmed the authorities in their plan to kill Jesus (11:47-53). In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ death is consistently portrayed as his ‘glorification’ through which he accomplishes his return to the Father.