I Am the Son of God
The narrative continues in John 10:34 with Jesus continuing to explain why He was not guilty of blasphemy - "Is it not written in your law [i.e., the Old Testament], 'I said, "You are gods"'?" (cf. Psa. 82:6). The meaning of the phrase in its original context is this: Civil authorities may correctly be referred to as "gods" because of their high position and official capacity. Moses was also called a "god" (cf. Exo. 7:1; 4:16).

Jesus then went on to state - "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). In other words, God's word cannot be set aside or annulled at will. To deny and reject the truth does not alter it or make it any less true. God's word is just as authoritative now as it always has been, regardless of those who oppose it (cf. II Cor. 13:8). Let it be understood, of course, that this is not to affirm that all Scriptures are binding upon man today (cf. Gal. 3:24,25).

Jesus' point here is that He has a right to call Himself God's Son without being blasphemous. After all, if it was permissible to refer to civil authorities as "gods" according to the Psalms, then certainly Jesus, being far greater than they, could call Himself the "Son of God," especially since the Father had sent Him into the world empowered for a special purpose.

"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me" (John 10:37). Jesus again exhorts them to consider His manner of life (and not just His words). The works of the Father were those miraculous works that only the Father could authorize and make possible. Jesus' claim is that the many miraculous works that He did could not be rightly explained any other way than that they were works of God.

"Though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him" (John 10:38). Even if they didn't want to believe in Him as God's Son, they should at least be honest enough to admit that the works He performed were only made possible through the Father. If they would at least admit this, then they would have to conclude that there was unity between the Father and Jesus (as He had claimed in 10:30).

The Jews have no response to Jesus' argument based on the Psalms. Perhaps His words had cast some doubt in their minds and calmed them down since now they are only trying to arrest Him instead of stoning Him! Their hope is probably that they can arrest Him and have a trial that would ultimately end in His death. Of course, even this effort was in vain for "He escaped out of their hand" (either providentially or miraculously).

The section concludes in John 10:40-42 - "And He went away again beyond the Jordan to the place where John was baptizing at first, and there He stayed. Then many came to Him and said, 'John performed no sign, but all the things that John spoke about this Man were true.' And many believed in Him there."

Certainly Jesus must have been frustrated with the continual, irrational resistance He had encountered in Jerusalem. However, He did have an influence on some in this region. It is reasonable to believe that much of His success here was a result of John's preparatory work in that area. As a side note, let it be observed that although John the baptizer had not performed any miracles, he had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit since birth (cf. Luke 1:15). Thus, those today who maintain that one must perform a miracle to prove the indwelling of the Spirit are in error.

There is quite a contrast between the people beyond the Jordan and those back in Jerusalem. The former group accepted the things John spoke about Jesus, and it helped lead them to a faith in Him (cf. Gal. 3:24).