BELIEVERS

BIBLE
BULLETIN

Believers Chapel * 6420 Churchill Way * Dallas, Texas 75230

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Lesson 50
January 23, 1983
John 10:32-42

The Charge of Blasphemy Refuted

S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.
Introduction
The design of the revelation contained in the Bible is the salvation of
men. Truth, it could be said, is in order to holiness. God does not
make known to men His being and attributes to teach them science,
but to bring them to the saving knowledge of Himself. The doctrines
of the Bible, therefore, are intimately connected with the life of God in
the soul.
The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiar to the religion of the Bible, to
Christianity. Although the word itself is not a biblical word, yet it is a
convenient designation of the one God self-revealed in Scripture as
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, neither three gods (tritheism) nor three
modes of God (monarchianism).
Now it is a common mistake of untaught believers to regard the
doctrine of the Trinity as a mere speculative truth. And often, popular
Bible teachers, playing upon the simplicity and ignorance of their
listeners, take advantage of the natural laziness of the human mind in
learning something new. The teachers encourage ignorance, speaking
out against "theology" and urging listeners to give attention to "life
truth," which is supposed to be "more practical" for the everyday life
and its problems.
1

It is, however, a great error to regard the doctrine of the Trinity as

impractical, for it underlies the whole plan of salvation, which demands
a divine Creator (just and holy, although sinned against), a divine
Redeemer, and a divine Sanctifier. These offices the three persons of
the Trinity fill with majesty, beauty, and effectiveness. A divine
Creator is necessary to explain the universe and men. A divine
Redeemer alone can give authentic tidings from the Godhead, and that
is why an incarnation is a necessity. And only a divine Redeemer can
provide an atonement that effectually removes the guilt of sin. We
cannot receive salvation from a demi-god. Our Savior must be one of
us, but also divine. Otherwise He has no contact with God, and His
sacrifice does not have sufficient value to cover our sin.
Many churches have practically abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity.
Churches with creedal statements that include the doctrine no longer
preach the truth, and often their ministers have abandoned belief in
the doctrine, being practically Unitarian in their views. And others,
while acknowledging belief in the teaching, never enforce its teaching
in their messages, with the result that their congregations are
theologically illiterate. And, sad to say, this is characteristic of many
evangelical congregations.
I am fearful of the path down which many of these congregations are
walking. In a generation or so, untold slippage of faith and practice
may take place. The "Bible" churches are in many cases already along
the way to spiritual mediocrity. The trivial ministry that characterizes
many of them can only lead to doctrinal ruin and the abandonment of
the faith that their forefathers believed. One of the great truths that
must be retained at all costs is the truth of the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity.
"As a historical fact," Hodge wrote, "it is beyond dispute that in
whatever church the doctrine of the Trinity has been abandoned or

obscured, every other characteristic doctrine of the gospel has gone

with it."1 That is a warning that we must note.
A central plank, perhaps the central plank, of the Trinity is the deity of
Christ, the Second Person, and that is before us in the passage that we
shall examine in this study.

THE CHARGE OF BLASPHEMY

The request of Jesus (John 10:32). Jesus has just made the
astonishing statement, "I and my Father are one," the word "one"
being a neuter and capable of the rendering one thing. It is a
reference to the "absolute unity" 2 the Son enjoys with the Father,
equivalent to a claim of deity. It is, as we have mentioned in the
previous study, a refutation of several heresies that plagued the church
in both ancient times and in relatively recent times. It refutes Arianism
with its denial of the eternal sonship of Christ, as well as Sabellianism
with its denial of the three persons of the Trinity and its contention
that the persons were only modes of manifestation. The word "one"
delivers the church from Arianism, and the plural word "are" from
Sabellianism.
The Athanasian Creed affirmed, "We worship one God in trinity and a
trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance."
As the Jews take up stones to stone our Lord for blasphemy, he asks,
"Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of
those works do ye stone me?" (cf. v. 32). Blasphemy was punished by
stoning (cf. Lev. 24:16), and it is clear that they regard His words
about His absolute unity with the Father as a claim for deity. Of
course, they are not following due process, but that becomes
customary in their dealing with Him, as later history will show.

The reply of the Jews (John 10:33). The Jews answered the Lord
Jesus in this way, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for
blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."
It is possible, of course, that they might have referred to the healing of
the impotent man, or to the healing of the blind man, for they certainly
were works performed by Him in the city. Instead they single out the
comment made by Him at this time, "I and my Father are one" (cf. v.
30). They recognize that this is really a claim of absolute unity with
the Father and, thus, a claim of deity. To be one with the Father can
only mean that.3

The response of Jesus (John 10:32-34). The response of Jesus

follows, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called
them gods, unto whom the word of God come, 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?" (vv. 32-34).
The words of our Lord have been given several different interpretations, and it is not difficult to understand why. The text from which he
quotes, Psalm 82:6, has itself been given differing interpretations.
Further, his use of the passage is not simple.
We shall notice first the view of a relatively recent and prominent
commentator on the gospel. J. N. Sanders was Fellow, Dean of
Peterhouse, Cambridge University, and University Lecturer in Divinity
there. Sanders regards Jesus' argument as a mere ad hominem
argument, or the typically Rabbinic form of argument from light to
heavy (cf. 7:22-23), or as we would say, an a fortiori one ("for a still
stronger reason"). In other words, in Psalm 82:6, judges, who are
mere men and unjust judges at that, are called by the sacred writer,
"gods." Now surely if men who are judges may be called "gods," who
do not have as high a status as He, sanctified and sent from the Father

into the world, then He may justly be said to be one in absolute unity
with the Father.
Sanders finds the argument unconvincing, although one that might find
some response among His contemporaries. I, too, find it unconvincing,
although it would have more credibility, if full attention were given to
the significance of the words, "sanctified, and sent into the world."
The reason I find the argument unconvincing is that by it Jesus would
be merely claiming a common dignity, that of the unjust judges in
Israel, and the context of this passage indicates that He is regarded by
the Jews as claiming divine dignity. He, they thought, was making
Himself God (cf. v. 33) 4
Of course, one might say, as Warfield does, that Jesus' defense is
inadequate, or perhaps incomplete, but then all that was necessary
was to repel the technical charge of blasphemy based on making
Himself God. He writes, ". . . it is not blasphemy to call one God in
any sense in which he may fitly receive that designation; and certainly
if it is not blasphemy to call such men as those spoken of in the
passage of Scripture adduced gods, because of their official functions,
it cannot be blasphemy to call Him God whom the Father consecrated
and sent into the world."5 This is still unsatisfactory to me, because
Jesus is not seeking simply to justify the use of the term "god" of
Himself. He is really making the claim that He is God by His words in
verse thirty. No ad hominem, or even e concessu ,6 argument is
satisfactory.
While recognizing the possible validity of the a. fortiori argument,
providing that full attention is given to the consecration and sending of
the Son into the world, words that seem to say that He is more than a
man, I still prefer a different approach. Basic to the Lord's approach is
the thought of the union of God with man (cf. w. 30, 38). In fact,
Westcott, I believe, is correct in saying, "Judaism was not a system of
limited monotheism, but a theism always tending to theanthropism, to
5

a real union of God and man."? In fact, basic to the idea of the Bible
is the idea of covenant, the idea of a covenant between God and man,
spelled out in the Abrahamic Covenant and its expansions in the other
historical covenants. The idea of the covenant assumed that there was
a possibility of a vital union between God and man. Since the fall this
could only be accomplished by the coming and redemption of a Godman. That, of course, Jesus accomplished.
The idea of the covenant is seen in Psalm 82:6, for the judges, acting
for the Lord God ideally, are called "gods," because they enjoy a
limited union with God as His representatives. So did the prophets and
the kings of the Old Testament, although there is really only one real
Prophet and King, the Lord God. Thus, the judges of the Old
Testament were types and shadows of a deeper union to come, for the
germ of the union of God and man is in the Law.
That Jesus perfectly realized the union of God and man in His incarnation, so perfectly that He is given the ultimate judicial power (cf.
5:22), is manifest in His work of incarnation and atonement and
resurrection. Thus, He is rightly called "Son of God," a term that fully
accords Him deity. He is the antitypical Judge, who perfectly realizes
the union foreshadowed in the "god" of Israel's ancient typical
theocracy. It appears to me that, if the problem is approached in this
way, then the sense of the term god becomes that of God, and the
argument of our Lord seems to demand that.
It is, of course, very instructive to notice the incidental argument in
our Lord's reply for the inerrancy of the Word of God. Warfield, commenting on His words, "and the scripture cannot be broken" (v. 35),
says it about as well as it can be said, "What we have here is,
therefore, the strongest possible assertion of the indefectible authority
of Scripture; precisely what is true of Scripture is that it 'cannot be
broken.' Now, what is the particular thing in Scripture, for the
confirmation of which the indefectible authority of Scripture is thus
6

invoked? It is one of its most casual clausesmore than that, the very
form of its expression in one of its most casual clauses. This means, of
course, that in the Savior's view, the indefectible authority of Scripture
attaches to the very form of expression of its most casual clauses. It
belongs to Scripture through and through, down to its most minute
particulars, that is of indefectible authority." 8 So much for an
incidental statement in a psalm not known for its great insignificance,
and upon one word of which our Lord grounds His claim to deity.
Many years ago, in a lecture on the topic at Dallas Theological
Seminary, Dr. Edward J. Young, then Professor of Old Testament at
Westminster Theological Seminary, made the comment on the
statement, "the scripture cannot be broken," that it was "a brief
summary of the Protestant position on Scripture."

THE CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE UNITY, OR DEITY

The claim for absolute unity with the Father is strengthened with the
words of verses 37 and 38, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe
me not. 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."
He utters no blasphemy, but demonstrable truth. Observe His works
and see that they support the truth that there exists a vital union
between Him and the Father.
The Jews again sought to take Him, but John says, "he escaped out of
their hand" (cf. v. 39). That is what one might expect from the
statement that He made in verse 29!

THE HISTORICAL CONCLUSION

John concludes the section with the words, "And went away again
beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there
he abode. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle:
7

but all things that John spoke of this man were true. And many
believed on him there" (vv. 40-42).
The faith in Peraea is in striking contrast to the unfaith in Judaea (cf.
1:11-12), and it forms the last act in John's accusation of the Jews. It
may also be an anticipation of the fact that the Greeks next come
seeking Him, a fact that leads on to the ultimate Gentile mission (cf.
12:21-23).

Conclusion
The deity of the Son, thus, stands out in the section, and in that fact
also the Trinity, to which we referred in the introduction, receives
further emphasis (cf. 1:1). If He is only a man, it is only a martyr's
death that He dies. If He is God only, as the early Docetists
contended, then there is no mediation for redemption. Being both God
and man, He dies the death of the representative Son of God, truly
man and yet fully God.
John Chrysostom, the famous fourth century preacher and Bishop of
Constantinople, set out the two natures in this way:

(man)
He was hungry, yet

(God)
Fed 15,000 with the loaves and
fishes

He was thirsty, yet

Turned water into wine.

He was carried in a ship, yet

Walked on the water.

He died, yet

Raised the dead.

He was set before Pilate, yet

Sits with the Father on His throne

to judge Pilate.
Worshipped by angels.

He was stoned by the Jews, yet

The sufficiency of His Person for our needs, as well as our responsibility to heed His words, naturally follow. In coming to Christ we
come to God. In refusing to come, we despise the most earnest
appeals from heaven.

A well-known theologian has told the following story about President

Grant. "I have heard that, during our Civil War, a swaggering,
drunken, blaspheming officer insulted and almost drove from the dock
at Alexandria, a plain unoffending man in citizen's dress; but I have
also heard that the same officer turned pale, fell on his knees, and
begged for mercy, when the plain man demanded his sword, put him
under arrest and made himself known as General Grant. So we may
abuse and reject the Lord Jesus Christ, and fancy that we can ignore
his claims and disobey his commands with impunity; but it will seem a
more serious thing when we find at the last that he whom we have
abused and rejected is none other than the living God before whose
judgment bar we are to stand." 9

Footnotes
1

A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972
[reprint of 1879 ed.]), p. 199.
2
Dodd, p. 389.
3
Cf. J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, ed. and completed
by B. A. Mastin (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1968), p. 259. Even Sanders
admits this.
4
Ibid., pp. 259-61. Leon Morris argues strongly for a "how much more" argument. "But
notice that His argument runs not, 'Psalm 82 speaks of men as gods; therefore I in
common with other men may use the term of Myself, but rather, 'If in any sense the
Psalm may apply this term to men, then much more may it be applied to Him whom the
Father sanctified and sent into the world.' Jesus is not classing Himself among men. He
calls Himself 'him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world (for 'sent see on
3.17). He separates and distinguishes Himself from men. His argument is of the 'How
much more' variety." See Morris, pp. 527-28.
5
B. B. Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," The Inspiration and Authority of the
Bible, ed. by Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Company, 1948), p. 138.
6
Ibid., p. 140.
7
Westcott, p. 160.
8
Warfield, pp. 139-40.
9
A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907), p. 350.