The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, maketh thyself God.

“(vii. de Trin. c. 23) The Jew saith, Thou being a man, the Arian, Thou being a creature: but both say, Thou makest Thyself God. The Arian supposes a God of a new and different substance, a God of another kind, or not a God at all. He saith, Thou art not Son by birth, Thou art not God of truth; Thou art a superior creature.”

“Healing of the sick, teaching, miracles. He shewed them of the Father, because He sought His Father’s glory in all of them. For which of these works do ye stone Me? They confess, though reluctantly, the benefit they have received from Him, but charge Him at the same time with blasphemy, for asserting His equality with the Father; For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.”

“Having set forth the teaching of Christ, here is consequently set forth the effect of his teaching among the Jews; and first he rebukes their savagery; second, he excludes from himself the blasphemy imputed to him, at the place, "The Jews answered him"; third, he avoids their obstinacy, at the place, "They sought therefore to seize him." Concerning the first he does two things. First, the savagery of the Jews is set forth, by which they were inflamed to stone Christ; hence he says, "The Jews took up stones to cast at him." For because they were hard, and could not understand the profound words of the Lord, being like stones themselves they run to stones; Psalm 119:6: "While I spoke to them, they fought against me without cause." Second, when he adds, "Many good works I have shown you," the Lord reproves their savagery: and first he recalls to them the benefits bestowed; second he reproves their savagery. Now he recalls the benefits which he showed them in the healings of the sick, in the display of teaching and of miracles; hence he answered them, saying: "Many good works I have shown you," namely by healing, by preaching, by working miracles: Mark 7:37: "He has done all things well," from my Father, whose glory I sought in all things; above, John 8:50: "I do not seek my own glory, but the glory of him who sent me." He reproves their savagery, saying, "For which of these works do you stone me?" As if to say: a benefactor ought to be honored, not stoned. A similar thing is said in Jeremiah 18:20: "Shall evil be rendered for good?" Here the Lord excuses himself from the charge of blasphemy, and first is set forth the imputation of blasphemy by the Jews; second, his excusing of it by Christ, at the place, "Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law?" and so on. He says, then, as to the first: "For a good work we do not stone you," and so on. Here five things occur to be considered. The first indeed seems to pertain to the motive of the stoning, which is blasphemy. For it is commanded in Leviticus 24:14 that blasphemers be stoned. "Bring forth," he says, "the blasphemer outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the people stone him." And as to this they say: "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy." The second is that they specify the blasphemy itself. For blasphemy consists not only in attributing to God what does not belong to him, but also in attributing to another what belongs to God alone: just as it is blasphemy not only to say that God is a body, but also to say that some creature can create. Mark 2:7, they said: "This man blasphemes. Who can forgive sins but God alone?" The Jews therefore said that the Lord was a blasphemer, not in the first way, but by usurping to himself what was proper to divinity; hence they said: "Because you, being a man, make yourself God." The third is that the Jews understood the word of Christ better than the Arians did, the word he had spoken: "I and the Father are one." Therefore they were angered, since they understood that it could not be said, "I and the Father are one," except where there is equality of Father and Son: and this is what they say: "You make yourself God," showing by your words that you are God, which is not true, since you are a man. The fourth is that so great is the distance between God and man, that it was incredible to them that the same one who is man should be God: hence they say pointedly, "Because you, being a man, make yourself God." Although they could have been freed from this unbelief by what is said in Psalm 8:5: "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you visit him?" Habakkuk 1:5: "I work a work in your days which no one will believe, when it is told," that is, the work of the incarnation, which surpasses every mind. The fifth is that in their words they contradict themselves: for on the one hand they confess that Christ does good works, saying, "We do not stone you for a good work," and on the other they impute to him blasphemy, namely that he falsely usurps to himself the honor of God: and these things are indeed contrary. For he could not work miracles from God if he blasphemed God, because, as is said in Matthew 7:18, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit"; which holds most especially in the case of Christ. Here he excludes from himself the blasphemy imputed to him, and first he sets forth his excuse; second he shows the truth of it, at the place, "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me." Now he excuses himself by an authority; hence first he sets forth the authority of Scripture; second he opens to them its meaning; third from this he concludes his proposition. He says, then: "Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law," namely in Psalm 81:6, "I have said, you are gods"? Here it must be known that the term "law" is taken in three ways in Scripture. Sometimes indeed universally for the whole Old Testament, insofar as it contains the five books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. And in this way it is taken here in "your law," that is, in the Old Testament: since it is written in the Psalms — for this reason it is called "law," because the whole Old Testament is held with the authority of law. Sometimes "law" is taken as it is divided against the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Hagiographa: and thus it is taken in Luke, last chapter, 44: "It is necessary that all things be fulfilled which are written in the law, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me." But at other times it is taken as "law" is divided against "prophets." And thus the Psalms, and the other books of the Old Testament, besides the Pentateuch, are included under "the prophets," because the Scripture of the Old Testament was put forth by a prophetic spirit. And in this way it is taken in Matthew 22:40: "On these two commandments the whole law depends, and the prophets." Thus, then, it is written: "I have said, you are gods." Hence it must be known that this name "God" is taken in three ways. For sometimes it signifies the divine nature itself, and thus it is said only in the singular; Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one." Sometimes, however, "God" is said nominally; and in this way idols are called gods; Psalm 95:5: "All the gods of the nations are demons." And sometimes someone is called "God" by some participation of divinity, or of a more excellent power divinely infused: and in this way even judges are called gods in Scripture; Exodus 22:8: "You shall bring them to the gods," that is, to the judges; and Exodus 22:28: "You shall not speak ill of the gods," that is, of the rulers. And it is in this way that the name "God" is taken here, when he says, "I have said, you are gods," that is, sharing in some divine power above the human. Consequently, when he says, "If he called those gods to whom the word of God was made," etc., he opens the sense of the aforesaid authority, as if to say: he therefore called them gods insofar as they participate in something of divinity according to the participation of the word of God made to them. For from the word of God a man attains some participation of divine power and purity; below, John 15:3: "Now you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you"; and in Exodus 34 it is said that the face of Moses was made resplendent from his converse with the word of the Lord. Now from what has been said, one could argue thus: it is manifest that someone, from participation in the Word of God, becomes God by participation; but nothing becomes such a thing by participation except from participation in that which is such by its own essence: for instance, something does not become fire by participation except by participation in fire which is fire by essence; therefore nothing becomes God by participation except from participation in him who is God by essence; therefore the Word of God, namely the Son himself, by participation in whom someone is made God, is God by essence. But the Lord chose to argue against the Jews in a more human manner rather than so profoundly. He says, moreover, "and the Scripture cannot be broken," in order to show the irrefragable truth of Scripture; Psalm 118:89: "Forever, O Lord, your word endures." Consequently, when he says, "him whom the Father sanctified," etc., he concludes his proposition. If indeed we refer this, according to Hilary, to Christ according as he is man, then the sense is: some men are called gods by the mere participation of the word of God, how then do you say, "You blaspheme," that is, you consider it blasphemy, that that man should be called God who is united to the Word of God in person? And therefore he says, "whom the Father sanctified." For although God sanctifies all who are sanctified — below, John 17:17: "Sanctify them in the truth" — yet he sanctified Christ in a special way. For he sanctifies others so that they may be adopted sons; Romans 8:15: "You have received the spirit of the adoption of sons"; but he sanctified Christ so that he might be the Son of God by nature, united in person to the Word of God: and these words show this in two ways. First, by what he says, "whom the Father sanctified." For if he sanctifies as a father, it is manifest that he sanctifies as a son; Romans 1:4: "Who was predestined the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification." Second, by what he said, "and sent into the world." For to be sent into some place does not befit any thing unless it existed before it was there; therefore that one whom the Father sent into the world, namely visibly, is the Son of God, who pre-exists his visible appearing: because, as is said above, John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made through him." Above, John 3:17: "For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world." This one, then, whom God sent into the world, do you say, "You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God"? As if he were to say: much more can I say this — I who am united to the Word in person — than those to whom the word of God was made. But whence did the Jews get the idea that Christ was the Son of God? For the Lord did not say this expressly. To this it must be said that although the Lord did not say this expressly, nevertheless from the words which he did say — namely, "I and the Father are one," and "what my Father has given me is greater than all" — they understood that he had received his nature from the Father, and was one in nature with him. Now this, namely to receive the same nature from someone and to exist thereby, has the character of sonship. But if we refer what he says, "the Father sanctified," according to Augustine, to Christ insofar as he is God, then the sense is: "whom the Father sanctified," that is, begot as holy from eternity. But the other things which follow are to be expounded in the same manner as Hilary expounds them. Nevertheless it is better expounded if the whole is referred to Christ insofar as he is man. Consequently, when he says, "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me," he proves the truth of what he has said; as if he were to say: although I be only a man, according to your reckoning, nevertheless I do not blaspheme in saying that I am truly God, because I most truly am. Hence concerning this he does two things. First he proposes the argument from the works; second he infers the conclusion he intends, at the place, "that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Concerning the first he does two things. First he says that without the works they would be excusable. And he says, "If I do not do the works of my Father" — namely the same works which he himself does, and by the same power and might — "do not believe me"; above, John 5:19: "Whatever the Father does, these things the Son likewise does." Second, that they are convicted by the works themselves, saying, "But if I do" — namely the same works which the Father does — "and if you do not wish to believe me, who appear as the son of man, believe the works"; that is, the works themselves demonstrate that I am the Son of God; below, John 15:24: "If I had not done the works which no one else has done, they would not have sin." Consequently he infers the conclusion he intends, saying, "that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." For there can be no indication of the nature of any thing so evident as that which is taken from its works. Evidently, then, it can be known of Christ, and believed, that he is God, through the fact that he does the works of God. And therefore he says: from the works themselves I will convince you, that you may know and believe what you cannot see with your eyes, namely that the Father is in me, and I in the Father; below, John 14:10: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Which is to be understood by unity of essence. And it is as if the same thing is meant by "the Father is in me, and I in the Father" and "I and the Father are one." Hilary, however, expounds this well, saying that there is a difference between God and man: for man, since he is composite, is not his own nature; but God, since he is most simple, is his own being and his own nature. In whatever, therefore, the nature of God is, there is God. Since, then, the Father is God and the Son is God, wherever the nature of the Father is, there is the Father, and wherever the nature of the Son is, there is the Son. Since, then, the nature of the Father is in the Son, and conversely: therefore the Father is in the Son, and conversely. But, as Augustine says, although God is in man, and man in God, as is said in 1 John 4:16, "He who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him," this is not to be understood by unity of essence; rather man is in God, that is, under the divine care and protection, and God is in man through the likeness of his grace. But the only-begotten Son is in the Father, and the Father in him, as an equal. Here the Lord avoids the obstinacy of the Jews, and first he shows their obstinacy; second he avoids it; third he shows the effect of his avoidance. Now he shows their obstinacy by the fact that after so many proofs of truth, after so many arguments of miracles and marvelous works, they still persevere in malice. Hence "they sought to seize him": not in order to believe and understand, but to rage and to do harm. For because he had expressed his equality with the Father more evidently, they were the more incited; Jeremiah 8:5: "They have seized upon falsehood, and have refused to return." Now the Lord avoids their savagery by going out from them; hence it says, "He went out of their hands." Here, first, it is shown how he left them, namely by going out of their hands: and this for two reasons. First, that he might show that he could not be seized except when he willed it; Luke 4:30: "Jesus, passing through the midst of them, went his way." Above, in the same Gospel: "No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself." Second, that he might give us an example of avoiding the savagery of the wicked, when it can be done without danger to the faith; Ecclesiasticus 8:14: "Do not stand against the face of an insolent man." Second, it is shown where he went upon leaving; hence it says, "and he went away again across the Jordan, to the place where John was first baptizing." Its mystical reason indeed is that he would one day go, through his apostles, to convert the Gentiles. But the literal reason is twofold. One, that the place was near Jerusalem, and the time of the Passion was already imminent, so he did not wish to go far away. The second, that he might recall to memory the testimony which John bore there, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world," and the testimony of the Father and the Son borne to Christ in Baptism. Now the effect of his withdrawal was the conversion of the crowds to the faith: and this conversion is described in three respects. First, as to the imitation of his activity; hence it says, "and many came to him," namely by imitation of his works; Matthew 11:28: "Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you." Second, as to the confession of the mouth; hence they also said, "John indeed did no sign." Here, first, they confess the eminence of Christ over John; hence they said, "John did no sign." The reason for this indeed was that John was sent as a witness of Christ, and hence it was fitting that he become worthy of belief, and that his testimony be shown to be true: which indeed is fittingly brought about through holiness of life; but Christ came as God: and therefore it was fitting that he should show in himself the signs of divine power. And so John excelled in holiness of life; Christ, however, in addition to this, also performed works manifesting divine power. This custom also was observed among the ancient authorities, that in the presence of a greater power a lesser power did not use the insignia of its power; hence in the presence of a dictator the consuls laid aside their insignia. It was not fitting, therefore, that John, who was of a lesser power, being a forerunner and a witness, should in the presence of Christ make use of the insignia of divine power; but Christ alone. Second, they confess the truth of John's testimony concerning Christ; hence they said, "For all things which John said of this one" — namely of Christ — "were true"; as if they were to say: even if John worked no sign, nevertheless concerning Christ he said all things truthfully. Third, he manifests the faith of the heart; hence it says, "and many believed in him." As Augustine says, they laid hold of Christ abiding, whom the Jews wished to seize as he was descending, because through the lamp they had come to the day: for John was the lamp, and bore witness to the day.”

“Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law,.... In the law which was given unto them, of which they boasted, and pretended to understand, and interpret, even in Psa 82:6; for the law includes not only the Pentateuch, but all the books of the Old Testament: it is an observation of one of the Jewish doctors (t), that "with the wise men of blessed memory, it is found in many places that the word law comprehends the Prophets and the Hagiographa.'' Among which last stands the book of Psalms; and this may be confirmed by a passage out of the Talmud (u); it is asked, "from whence does the resurrection of the dead appear, , "out of the law?"'' It is answered, "as it is said in Psa 84:4, "Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will still praise thee, Selah; they do praise thee", it is not said, but "they will praise thee"; from hence is a proof of the resurrection of the dead, "out of the law".'' The same question is again put, and then Isa 52:8 is cited, and the like observation made upon it. Moreover, this is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they introduce another citing a passage of Scripture thus (w), , "is it not written in your law", Deu 4:9, "only take heed to thyself", &c. so here the Scripture follows, I said, ye are gods? which is spoken to civil magistrates, so called, because of their authority and power; and because they do, in some sort, represent the divine majesty, in the government of nations and kingdoms. Many of the Jewish writers, by "gods", understand "the angels". The Targum paraphrases the words thus: "I said ye are accounted as angels, as the angels on high, all of you;'' and to this sense some of their commentators interpret it. Jarchi's gloss is, ye are gods; that is, angels; for when I gave the law to you, it was on this account, that the angel of death might not any more rule over you: the note of Aben Ezra is, "and the children of the Most High": as angels; and the sense is, your soul is as the soul of angels: hence the (x) Jew charges Christ with seeking refuge in words, that will not profit, or be any help to him, when he cites these words, showing that magistrates are called gods, when the sense is only, that they are like to the angels in respect of their souls: but let it be observed, that it is not said, "ye are as gods", as in Gen 3:5, but "ye are gods"; not like unto them only, but are in some sense gods; and besides, to say that they are like to angels, with respect to their souls, which come from above, is to say no more of the judges of the earth, than what may be said of every man: to which may be added, that this objector himself owns, that judges are called "gods", as in Exo 22:9; the cause of both parties shall come before "the judges"; and that even the word is used in this sense in this very psalm, from whence these words are cited, Psa 82:1, "he judgeth among" "the gods"; and both Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret this text itself in the same way, and observe, that judges are called gods, when they judge truly and aright: all which is sufficient to justify our Lord in the citation of this passage, and the use he makes of it. (t) R. Azarias in Meor Enayim, c. 7. fol. 47. 1. (u) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2. (w) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 32. 2. (x) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 51. p. 440, 441.”

“But for blasphemy - I have elsewhere shown that the original word, βλασφημειν, when applied to men, signifies to speak injuriously of their persons, character, connections, etc.; but when applied to God it signifies to speak impiously, i.e. contrary to his nature, perfections, the wisdom of his providence, or goodness of his works. Thou, being a man - That is, only a man - makest thyself God. When Christ said before, Joh 10:30, I and the Father are one, had the Jews understood him (as many called Christians profess to do) as only saying he had a unity of sentiments with the Father, they would not have attempted to treat him for this as a blasphemer; because in this sense Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and all the prophets, were one with God. But what irritated them so much was that they understood him as speaking of a unity of nature. Therefore they say here, thou makest thyself God; which word they understood, not in a figurative, metaphorical, or improper sense, but in the most literal meaning of the term.”

“for a blasphemy--whose legal punishment was stoning (Lev 24:11-16). thou, being a man--that is, a man only. makest thyself God--Twice before they understood Him to advance the same claim, and both times they prepared themselves to avenge what they took to be the insulted honor of God, as here, in the way directed by their law (Joh 5:18; Joh 8:59).”