I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:30-36)
The Jewish authorities taunted Jesus: “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24). The Greek word rendered “said” in that verse uses the imperfect tense, which means they surrounded him (“then came the Jews round about him”) and kept on asking Jesus to tell them plainly. The wording in the Greek is literally, “How long do you steal away our hearts/hold up our soul?” as if Jesus were teasing them by not telling them who He really was. You see the mocking scorn in this question. They mean to taunt Jesus: “We really want to follow you, but we need to know if you really are the Messiah or not. How long will you hold us in suspense?” They use the 1st-class conditional. Literally, “Since you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” And since they asked, Jesus answered. Do you want to know Who I am? “I and my Father are one.”
Having lived and served in Utah for nearly three decades, I believe this answer and the subsequent explanation have led to some interesting obfuscations and exclamations among LDS church members. On the one hand, the more devout members twist themselves into knots in their attempt to explain away Christ’s claim in verse 30 – “I and my Father are one.” “One in purpose!” they claim as if it were possible for a lesser being than God to be one in purpose with God. But then, when we come to verses 34 and 35, they insist on the most literal interpretation possible: “See! Jesus even said that we are gods.”
So, let’s take a careful look at this little dust-up between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities and see what all this really means. John has been slowly unfolding the true identity of Jesus step-by-step, beginning in John 1, where we learn that Jesus the Word was with God as distinct from Him and yet was God, “for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” He was in the beginning with God; all things were made by Him. In case of confusion about the identity of the Word in John 1:1, John adds in verse 14 that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” and then tells us in no uncertain terms that Jesus reveals the Father to us.
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
This unveiling of the true Jesus continues throughout the gospel of John. Jesus is the one who came down from heaven; He was sent by God the Father; He does the work of God the Father (5:17); He is the bread of life, the living water, the light of the world. He told the Jews that “before Abraham was, I am.” He is the Good Shepherd. And now this, the most explicit claim to deity yet, in John 10:30. So, this is no sudden leap. There is method to the madness (so to speak).
Jesus doesn’t mean He and the Father are one Person or the same Person. The verb “are” is masculine, but the word “one” is neuter. If “one” were masculine too, then Jesus would be saying, “I and my Father are one Person.” By using the neuter, Jesus preserves the distinction between Himself and the Father – not because He is trying to maintain the doctrine of the Trinity or make things easier for us Trinitarians. Of course. Jesus isn’t trying to preserve the integrity of any particular doctrine. He tells us the truth about Himself. The Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is a simple recognition of the complex revelation of God to us as we find it in Scripture.
God’s revelation is complex, not convoluted. We find a consistent self-revelation in Scripture. When Jesus was baptized, the Father spoke, and the Spirit descended. Jesus prayed to God the Father. Clearly, there is a distinction between the Father and the Son. They are not the same Person. Essentially, Jesus said in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one thing.” That is what the neuter “one” tells us. Jesus means He and the Father “have the closest possible unity of purpose.” It is a functional unity.
Most LDS church members would argue that Jesus means “they are one in purpose.” And that is technically correct. But it ignores what is clearly implied. No other being could claim to be one in purpose with God the Father. How can there be such unity of purpose without unity of essence?
This point wasn’t missed by the experts in the law among the Jewish religious authorities. They took up stones to stone Him. They knew what Jesus was saying. They recognized the scope of His claim and considered it to be blasphemous.
This isn’t the first time the Jews have threatened to stone Jesus for blasphemy. In John 5:17, when Jesus said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” they knew Jesus meant that he did everything the Father did.[1] For Jesus to say, “I and my Father are one,” is for Jesus to make the same claim. If the will of the Son is in perfect harmony with the will of the Father, that is because the will of the Son is divine, just like the will of the Father.[2]
So, the Jews requested a plain statement of Jesus’ identity, and Jesus gave it. And to demonstrate that they are not His sheep, the Jews took up stones again to stone him (v. 31). Then, Jesus turned the tables on these pompous windbags. They taunted Him, so He answered them. Now, Jesus taunts them.
Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (v. 32)
To which His opponents had a ready answer.
For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (v. 33)
In answer to this challenge, Jesus gave an answer that you, my LDS friend, might have been taught lends support to the idea that man can become a god. The LDS church believes in the deification of man. They argue that this doctrine is in the Bible and that the early church fathers also believed it in some form. But they also admit that these early church fathers probably didn’t believe it like modern-day Mormons.
We should note that members of the LDS church don’t believe in the doctrine of deification because they find that taught in the Bible. Members of the church believe in deification because Joseph Smith taught it. However, they also attempt to defend it from the Bible. If you deny the doctrine (as I do), they will take you to Genesis first and argue that man is made in the image of God, so we have the seeds of deity in us.
When Adam sinned, God said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us… suggesting that a process of approaching godliness was already underway.” [3]
Then they point to Psalm 82, which Jesus quotes here, and hold it up as Scriptural proof that man can become a god. In what follows, I won’t be refuting their use of Scripture. They don’t believe in deification for Scriptural reasons. They use the Bible as support for whatever Joseph Smith taught, but the members of the church don’t think that the Bible is authoritative in matters of doctrine.
So, let me clear up a few things before we dive into this part of what Jesus said. Disobeying our Creator God didn’t give us a leg up toward future godhood. Sin didn’t get the ball rolling towards godliness. In fact, quite the opposite: sin disfigured the image of God that was stamped on us at creation. Adam’s sin ruined the image of God. It most certainly didn’t launch us closer to becoming that image.
As for Psalm 82 and John 10:34, when Jesus said, “Ye are gods,” He most certainly wasn’t suggesting to the rabid mob that they were well on the way to deification. They were holding stones in their trembling hands at that moment, intent on stoning their Creator.
Jesus didn’t point to Psalm 82 to explain how He had become a God, “and so can you.” That is the irony of this controversy with LDS teaching. The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy, and Jesus denies the charge. See what they say in v. 33? “Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” But of course, Jesus didn’t make Himself God. He made Himself a man. John 1 teaches that Jesus, Who was always God, became a man. No matter how hard well-meaning LDS apologists try to make the Bible say that man can become a god, you will not find that doctrine in Scripture. Certainly not in John 10.
In John 10, we find Jesus, the Good Shepherd, giving His life for the sheep. Jesus begins the chapter with the parable of the Good Shepherd. He assures us that He will not lose any of His sheep. His sheep are His own from the Father. They hear His voice and follow Him. He is not a thief, a robber, or a hireling. He is the Good Shepherd. He is the door of the sheep. By Him, the sheep go in and out and find pasture. They are fat and flourishing (some more than others). The wolves come, but He doesn’t flee. He gives His life for the sheep.
But the wolves (these antagonistic Jewish religious authorities) have surrounded Him (John 10:24). When they do, He shows them plainly who He is. He points to the works He has done, explains why they don’t hear Him, and points to His unity with the Father: unity of doing that comes from unity of being.
When He states plainly Who He is (v. 30), the Jews take up stones to stone Him. Jesus’ answer to the stones is very telling. Notice first: Jesus proves that He is not a hireling. He doesn’t flee. Instead, He brings up His bounty of benevolent works. “Which of these works of mercy provoked you to stone me?” The Jews charge Him with blasphemy. Jesus answers them with their own Scriptures (v. 34). Your law says, “Ye are gods.” He doesn’t make a radical claim here, despite how the LDS church has misconstrued this verse.
Psalm 82:1 says: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” The word “gods” is the Hebrew Elohim. Elohim is a broad word that can include God the Father, the entire Godhead, and those in authority. Judges are called Elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9. And Psalm 82 is written as a rebuke of Israel’s judges for failing to defend the innocent and do justice for the people.
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. (Psalm 82:2)
But Jesus in John 10:35 tells us that these “gods” are those to whom the word of God came. While the law was entrusted to the judges, it was given to all the people of Israel. Psalm 82:6 says, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” At Sinai, God gave the law to all the people, not just the judges. Exodus 4:21-22 refers to the entire nation of Israel as God’s firstborn son.
So, when God said, “Ye are gods,” We assume He had all the people of Israel in mind. Yet, He targets Israel’s judges so He may have the judges in mind. Either way, the point is the same. Jesus said,
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
The word “if” in verse 35 is a 1st class conditional (so, “since”). He means that since God called either the judges or the people of Israel “Elohim,” and the scripture cannot be broken, we can’t set it aside just because it is inconvenient. [4] That, by the way, applies to all of Scripture, not just here. God called the people of Israel Elohim. Since we cannot escape what the Bible says, Jesus asks the religious authorities, how can you charge me with blasphemy when God sent me into the world?
Jesus sees a mob around Him, stones in hand, prepared to dash his brains into the ground, and He backs them off of Him with this brilliant little argument. They couldn’t argue against the Old Testament, which they claimed to champion. They were, after all, Moses’ children. Don’t forget that. So, no, they are stuck on the horns of a dilemma. If God called all the children of Israel Elohim, or if He only applied that to Israel’s judges (remember that the Pharisees sat in Moses’ seat), who were they to deny that right to Jesus?
And, of course, His mighty works demonstrated that the Father sent Jesus. This is precisely what Jesus points out in verse 37: the “if” that opens that verse is another 1st class conditional. He challenges them: “Since I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.” Go on thinking that, if you will.
But, of course, they knew better. Notice verse 38:
But since I do (the works of my Father), though ye believe me not, believe the works…
Considering the abundance of good works He has done, they should know that the Father is in Jesus, and Jesus is in the Father. But of course, they won’t consider the direct proof of the deity of Christ in the works He did. They dropped the stones, but they didn’t drop their hostilities.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, (John 10:38-39)
So, Jesus doesn’t suggest that God meant men will be deified in the resurrection. God made all the people judges by giving Israel His oracles (Romans 3:2). In that sense, they acted as Elohim on God’s behalf. Jesus’ religious opponents took up stones to stone Jesus because He “made Himself God,” and as Jesus points out, “God actually referred to all of us with that term.” Then, He let them grapple with that one. And so will I.
You can’t progress into godhood. That is extra-biblical and heretical. Jesus means only that they had no justification for stoning Him, especially given the works of mercy, the works of God, He did. His point isn’t that they can be gods. His point is that they can’t deny that He is God.
[1] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John, p. 395
[2] Blum, E. A. (1985). John. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures(Vol. 2, p. 311). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
[3] https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng
[4] Guthrie, D. (1994). John. In D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham (Eds.), New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 1048). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.
The Village Smithy 