31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?”
This follows a long discourse between Jesus and the Jews, he has just declared that him and God the Father are one. As with some of Jesus’ other explicit divine claims they respond by trying to stone him. Stoning was the lawful form of punishment of crimes like blasphemy and adultery, the Romans had attempted to put an end to such things, not because they thought it was immoral but because they believed that they owned this land and by extension the people, the authority for capital punishment belonged to them not the Jews and their weird desert religion, this is why the Passion account plays out how it does. When the Romans are watching, the Jews can’t stone anyone but when they aren’t looking the Jews do as they please. There are Roman records of mobs of people taking part in these punishments in the first century despite the pagans trying to end it. Today’s events are one of those.
The fact that they are attempting to stone Jesus makes it clear that he was making divine claims because they are definitely not accusing him of adultery, they will explicitly state that blasphemy and old Jewish records also state blasphemy so both the Jewish and Christian sides acknowledge the fact that Jesus did in fact make divine claims, the difference is whether or not they are true. Jesus points out to his would be executioners that he has done many good works, divine signs, that come from his Father, God. Jesus’ actions from the Jewish perspective should be “Wow, look what God has done” instead its “kill him”. Jesus asks which one of these miraculous signs is why they wish to kill him.
33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
The Jews attempt to separate actions from persons and from words. This is important to acknowledge. A judgement of stoning requires an action of infringement. They are saying there is no action and in fact don’t judge any of his good works at all but for the words in isolation of Jesus’ actions or his person. They accuse him of blasphemy, despite his good actions which is actually kind of analogous to their accusation of his “casting out demons by the power of demons” it’s irrational. He’s doing good works of God but think he can simultaneously be blaspheming God. Saint James will say in his epistle “But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.”. You can’t actually disconnect these things. They also deny Jesus’ divine identity as they only see with their eyes, so presume Jesus to be just a man that is making divine claims. This would be blasphemy if Jesus wasn’t God. It might seem like I am going on a bit here but it is because many non-Christians and Christians with a poor understanding of the trinity will misinterpret Jesus’ response to this accusation so we must correctly understand what they are saying. The sticking point for them is explicitly the word that Jesus uses, from their perspective a person can be separated from their actions and be judged on a single word choice.
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
Jesus now uses a minimal facts-style argument, appealing to a premise His opponents accept to defend His divinity without requiring them to first believe in His full divine nature. He does so by pointing to a phrase found in Psalm 82. “I said, you are gods”. The original word translated as “gods” is the Hebrew Elohim, which can be used for the big “G” God but it is much more of a species identifier than a name. Depending on the construction of the sentence we can tell if it is plural or singular, much like the word “Sheep”. In the context of Psalm 82 it is calling something other than Yahweh “Elohim”. If this is scriptural and true, even if they do not believe that Jesus is God they must accept that it isn’t unlawful to use this term for things that are not Yahweh.
Jesus then applies the Lesser-to-Greater argument, if these entities which are lesser, an exegetical analysis of Psalm 82 reveals these are literally fallen angels being called “gods”, then how could it possibly be blasphemy for someone consecrated by God and sent by him to be called a son of God. Jesus is not just referencing the singular line but the whole Psalm, ancient Hebrews didn’t cite scripture by chapter and verse, that wasn’t invented till the 13th Century, they used to cite the Title or Name of the author, it was common for citing a whole psalm with one excerpt. In Psalm 82 these fallen angels are literally called sons of Elohim as well as being called Elohim. If they can be called that then even from the Jews incorrect perspective they must accept that Jesus can lawfully say the same about himself even though they do not fully grasp the gravity of Jesus’ meaning. Since they are claiming to only be stuck on the wording of Jesus and not its meaning, Jesus has committed no crime.
They do not doubt his good works, they even claim that they are only judging him for his words. But if they do not doubt this they should not doubt him. They should only doubt him if they doubt his works. To put it all rather short, the entirety of their opposition to Jesus is logically inconsistent. If they were to be consistent they would believe what he has to say about himself and his relation to God the Father.
39 Again they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
As with their other attempts, Jesus escapes unscathed. This happens enough times for us to infer a supernatural preventative being used though we do not know what that is specifically. Whatever it is, it works to prevent any judgement being laid upon him until the hour of his Passion.
40 He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and there he remained.
41 And many came to him; and they said, “John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.”
42 And many believed in him there.
Jesus leaves for Perea, modern day Jordan. This was where the bulk of John the Baptists ministry took place. Like John, many come out to the wilderness in order to see and hear him. They comment that unlike John, Jesus does miraculous signs but they acknowledge that every John said about Jesus was true, they noting a continuity with John despite the vast differences. Many of those out in wilderness believed in him, in contrast to the large portion of city dwellers who vehemently opposed him.
Leave a Reply