John 10:31:37 ASV The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, 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 sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the'son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
The charge is blasphemy.
Jesus argues against that charge with an argument based on scripture, wherein he quotes the very law that they claim to adhere to.
But his argument is sophisticated and his argument skirts around the issue that they are trying to force. He does not make any further claim about himself. Jesus' statements relate to his 'father'. It is up to his hearers to decide whether to view Jesus' 'father' as Joseph, or Abraham or David . . . . .
. . . or God.
As to men being 'god', there is precedence and Jesus quotes it.
The term is relative and Jesus applies it in a certain context and leaves them with a charge which does not hold water. If some, in the past, could be called 'gods' because of their (believing) relationship to God, then why are they upset with Jesus ?
But no. Absolutely no. Jesus does not 'concede the charge'.
Quite the contrary, he argues against it and leaves them tangled in their own assertions.
From the text itself, Jesus refuted blasphemy charges, but did not refute claiming to be God. Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6:
I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; (ESV)
This refuted their blasphemy charges, but wasn't a claim to be God unless you have an LDS theology.
If Jesus were not God, he could have simply told them and it would have been settled. That he did not do this, implies a claim to be God. If Jesus had made a clear claim to be God. He would have been executed before the right time.
The argument is multi-fold
1 - on the one hand they were accusing Jesus of claiming to be a god, as if to say there is but ONE (singular) God.
“The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”” John 10:33
2 - on the other hand they were accusing Jesus of claiming equality with God
Point 1 - There are many gods
Jesus addresses the first point saying that Scripture itself speaks of many gods and He quoted psalm 82
“I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;” Psalm 82:6
This puts to rest their argument that there is just ONE (singular) God. The Scripture speaks of many gods. And the Scripture cannot be broken/undone.
Point 2 - Jesus doubles down
The first part of His argument would have been fine, they would have accepted the first argument on technicality even if the gods of Psalm 82 were not humans and they would have left Jesus alone but Jesus decides to press the point home, that not only are there many gods but that He and the Father are one (united).
“understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”” John 10:38
This was a sore point with them because they were already upset that echad was used instead of yachid, allowing for the possibility that God was not singular but multiple in unity
““Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one echad.” Deuteronomy 6:4
Which means the echad (Hebrew) and the hen (Greek) does not read God is ONE (singular) but God is ONE (united). This is consistent throughout the Bible OT and NT, allowing for a triune God.
Jesus’ statement became unbearable. It’s at this point that they sought to arrest him (and stone him to death).
The accusation against Him being blasphemy. If they had understood that Jesus was merely saying He was one of the gods then they would have settled on technicality but when Jesus said that “The Father was in Him and He was in the Father” that was no longer Jesus differentiating Himself a one of the Benei ha’Elohim rather He was claiming equality with God, which in their mind was blasphemy, in part because they couldn’t accept that God would agree to humble (humiliate) Himself and take on human form and in part because they didn’t want Jesus to be God.
Did Jesus concede to the accusation of blasphemy?
Absolutely not, Jesus said He was part of the echad God in human form and could not be committing blasphemy against His own kind.
Jesus left no doubt, He claimed to be God and did not concede to the accusation of blasphemy