[The following study I received from a participant on soc.religion.christian a while back. However, it was pointed out to me that apart from minor rephrasing this is identical to W. Gary Phillips' article in Bibliotheca Sacra, September-December, 1989 issue called "An Apologetic Study of John 10:34-36." For proper citation and the various footnotes, please refer to the original article. Used with permission of W. Gary Phillips.]


An Apologetic Study of
    John 10:34-36

Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I
said, you are gods'?  If he called them gods, to whom the word
of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say 
of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 
'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" 
(John 10:34-36).

Theologically, evangelicals glory in the implications of
"Scripture cannot be broken" for bibliology, and delight in the
Christology of the surrounding verses: "I and the Father are
one" (v. 30), "the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (v. 38;
cp. 14:11).  Dispite the strength of these verses, we sometimes
have longings to sever these affirmations from the argument of
verses 34-36.

Precisely what was Jesus saying in these verses?  Was He
rescinding previous claims?  Was Jesus shrewdly using the Jews'
own gullibility against them, flinging the provincialism of
their naive bibliology or their rabbinic hermeneutics back in
their teeth?  Was He disassociating Himself from what He termed
"your law?"  Was He proving logically that He is God?  (And if
so, to whose satisfaction?)  How should readers interpret His

I found it a bit disconcerting to turn some of standard works
that I own only to find out that, though vs, 34-36 are popular
in discussions of bibliology, the passage is simply not treated
Christologically.  It is not mentioned in the theologies of
Berkhof, Chafer, or Thiessen and it is dealt with only in
passing by Berkouwer, Buswell, Hodge, Shedd, and Warfield.
After having thrown down the gauntlet, I began to think I had
put my foot in it big time.  Another one of my famous leaps
without looking.  But after finishing my week-end  honey-do
projects, I began calling around to some friends.  Thanks to a
friend who is a prof at Moody Bible Institute, I was finally
able to collect a couple of his thesis written in seminary on
the surrounding text.  He also has lent me something written by
a Gary Phillips, Department of Bible and Philosophy Chairman,
Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee.  It is this paper which has
been of immeasurable help and I would therefore wish to credit
him for a large part of what follows.

Phillips points out that possibly the reason for such a
disregard among conservative scholars is that the passage
contains a matrix of interwoven problems that need to be
chiseled away before revealing the original intent.

Phillips, after considering this passage in John's literary
context, reviews three interpretations, each of which
understands Jesus' argument differently.  Logical reasons why
most interpreters believe Jesus cannot be arguing for His divine
nature in this pericope are examined concluding with a logical
reconstruction of the passage that bypasses the major logical
problems.  The passage then finally walks out of the shadows and
is no longer categorized as being a diverging "problem passage"
in Christology, but rather a converging argument for the deity
of Christ.

An Examination of the Passage


Throughout the Gospel of John, several themes converge to
produce delicate yet forceful harmony.  (cf. Merrill Tenney,
John: The Gospel of Belief)  Two themes are pertinent to this
study, and both are related to John's stated purpose: that the
works of Jesus and their interpretation through the words of
Jesus are recorded to induce belief (20:30-31).

As both Tenney and Phillips point out, John repeatedly
contrasted Jesus with His enemies who were furious with Him for
making claims to deity.  When they accused Jesus, Jesus'
response to this charge of blasphemy is given in 10:34-38.  He
discussed both His words (vv. 34-36) and His works (vv. 37-38)
as two prongs of defense.  The appeal to His works to validate
His claims is clear, forceful, and without ambiguity.

However, in discussing His words, Jesus placed His claim to be
the Son of God in an uncertain relationship with an Old
Testament passage.  Some of the commentaries which I have read
claim that Jesus was evading the charge by enshrouding His
claims within a cloud of vagueness that dulls the sharpness of
His (previously, quite clear) statements.  Also, I found it
interesting that some of the critics of conservative doctrine
ask some rather embarrassing questions: First, why did Jesus
call the Old Testament "your Law," as though He were
disassociating Himself from a distasteful ally?  Second, does
not the form of the argument indicate that Jesus had been
claiming all along to be merely "a son of God"?  Third, does not
Jesus resort to ad hominem argumentation, which saves Him from
His accusers but is irrelevant to the charge of blasphemy?  If
this is so, would He not then be deceptive?

Accepting that there are two prongs to Jesus' response (His
works and His words) they almost seem unequally yoked when
gauged by the criteria of forcefulness and clarity.  An analysis
of the passage will explore this perceived weakening of Jesus'


Jesus responded to the charge of blasphemy with a quotation in
John 10:34 from Psalm 82:6, "Has it not been written in your
Law, 'I said, you are gods'?"  I see three issues meriting
attention from verse 34 - the meaning of numos, the nuance of
humon, and the significance of the quotation from Psalm 82.

Jesus' use of numos was a designation of the whole Old
Testament, a practice seen use elsewhere in the New Testament.
This use of numos is a fitting designation, for it reminds the
hearer that the Word of God has a legally binding and
authoritative character - the Scriptures serve as the final
court of appeal.  This emphasis is particularly appropriate in
John 10, in which an accusation (judgment) of breaking the Law
(Lev. 24:16; see Jn 19:7) was made against Jesus, and in which
Jesus appealed to a psalm that reveals the "judgment of unjust
judges," who had abused the Law.

Jesus referred to the Law as numos humonv.  Though some see in
humon a disavowal of and contempt for the Old Testament, it is
easily evident that the very opposite is true.  Jesus began the
citation with the perfect participle gegrommenon, as He often
did when appealing to the authority of Scripture.  The
Word-Incarnate relied on inferences drawn from the
Word-written.  Lest there be any doubt about what He meant, He
adds, "Scripture cannot be broken" (v. 35b).  This appeal to the
authority of all Scripture (including the rather obscure
statement from Psalm 82) reinforces the implications Jesus was
drawing from Psalm 82.  Jesus' enemies are bound by what Jesus
was about to say, since it was derived from the truth of an Old
Testament incident.

According to Phillips, the quotation from Psalm 82:6 agrees
exactly with the Septuagint (81:6) and the Masoretic text.
God's representatives were called "gods. "  Additionally, not
only did God call men elohiym but also they were called "sons of
God," a term that emerged later.  These humans were those who
should have administered justice according to the Law of God,
and thus represent God's will to the people.  It is from that
historical situation that Jesus derived the principle that
divine commissioning permits individuals to bear the divine

John 10:36 then reveals the crux of the argument, and at the
same time the crux of our interpretive dispute;  Jesus draws
attention to the work of the Father on His behalf - the Father
sanctified Him and sent Him.

In light of biblical precedent (vv. 34-35) and the work of the
Father on His behalf, Jesus asked, "How can you accuse Me of
blasphemy when I, too, claim the divine title rightfully?"  From
what I have read, the words, huios ton theon eimi, have elicited
a far amount of controversy.  As I am sure Andre will gleefully
point out, "son" is without the definite article, and working
from that base he will content that Jesus was clarifying the
fact that He was not God and that He never claimed to be equal
with the Father.  There are others, however, who attack it from
a different vantage by maintaining that Jesus was merely
silencing His opposition, attacking them through clever
sophistry.  "The argument is admittedly ad hominem and indeed is
little better than a play on words, for Jesus claims to be the
'Son of God' in a very different sense." (MacGregor, The Gospel
of John)

Yet there are those of us who would argue that Jesus was again
claiming to be the unique Son of God.  We would augment our
argument with the audience reaction (v. 39), the later charges
brought against Jesus (e.g., 19:7), and interpreting the
anarthrous title as descriptive of deity, qualitatively distinct
from "sons of God" in Psalm 82.

Consideration of the Options

Within both groups (Jesus is/ Jesus is not claiming deity) are
those who maintain that Jesus is arguing a fortiori: if X is
true, then how much more must Y be true.

The only remaining conclusion is that Jesus spoke the truth, and
that He was "one with the Father."  His appeal to Scripture is a
bit of a fortiori argument.

Those arguing a fortiori, however, differ on the direction of
the argument.  Was Jesus arguing a majori ad minus (from the
greater to the lesser), using the divine titles generically at
both levels?  If so, He was evading the charge by movement from
the greater (men receive the grand title elohiym) to the lesser
(i.e., that Jesus may be entitled, generically a "son of God").

Or was Jesus arguing a minori ad majus (from the lesser to the
greater)?  That is, because unworthy men receive the divine
title which little befits them, may not the unique Son of God
(by nature) claim His divine title with infinitely greater

It is time to take a closer look at these three major

OPTION ONE:  Jesus, a Son of God, was silencing His opposition
(a majori ad minus)

According to this view Jesus is repeatedly being misunderstood.
He was a rabbi whose teachings were so novel that their very
uniqueness undermined accurate preservation, particularly as His
words were filtered through the Jewish theology of first and
second century disciples.  However, glimpses of Jesus, who
occasionally tried to "set the record straight," have been
preserved (as in the present passage).  His words might be
paraphrased as follows:

Does not even your Scripture, which you regard as absolutely
truthful, call human beings "gods"?  Then why do you get so
upset and accuse me of blasphemy when I only claim to be "a son"
of God?

The details of the paraphrase differ among interpreters, but the
common denominator of those in this school of thought is the
conviction that it is Jesus' followers that have distorted His
words.  Only redactional study and negative criteria will yield
the authentic sayings of Jesus.  Fortunately, it is claimed,
this passage preserves rare elements of the historical Jesus who
plainly disclaimed personal deity.

Energy, desire, and net etiquette (length) forbids an analysis
of the philosophical and hermeneutical assumptions that
undergird such a view.  But it should be sufficient enough to
note that this interpretation simply does not fit the context,
in which Jesus had ample opportunity to "tell [them] plainly"
(v. 24).  Some of the other elements of this view will be
discussed under the second option.

In summary then, Option One maintains that Jesus was not divine,
nor did He ever claim to be divine.  Though Option Two differs
regarding Jesus' nature, it agrees with Option One in that Jesus
was not here claiming to be God.

OPTION TWO:  Jesus, the Son of God, was silencing His opposition
(a majori ad minus)

In, The Gospel According to John, Raymond Brown states that:

"to a western mind this argument seems to be a deceptive
fallacy.  The Jews are not objecting that Jesus is raising
himself to the level of a god in the sense in which the judges
were gods; they are objecting that he is making himself God with
a capital 'G."'

According to Option Two, however, the term Jesus applied to
Himself, "son of god," is to be taken as qualitatively lower
than the god of verse 34.  The holders of this assertion claim
that Jesus was indeed the unique Son of God, but that in this
exchange with the Jews He neither was affirming His previous
claims nor was He denying them.

[Parenthesis:  There are some that contend that Jesus was using
rabinic hermeneutics against His opponents, ad hominem.  One
being Qal Wahomer:  what applies in a less important case will
certainly apply in a more important case.  Two being Gezerah
Shawah:  verbal analogy from one verse to another;  where the
same words are applied to two separate cases it follows that the
same considerations apply to both.  (There is more about this if
any one wants footnotes.)]

Rather, He was evading the charge of blasphemy.  Thus Model Two
would paraphrase His argument:

You have asked Me to tell you plainly, and I have told you
plainly (vv. 24, 30).  You are not hearing Me because you are
not listening to Me; you are not of My sheep (v. 26).  Now you
have the audacity to accuse Me of blasphemy (v. 33).  Further
discussion with you would be fruitless, so I am going to end it

Does not the Law call wicked humans "gods"?  Therefore it cannot
necessarily be blasphemous for men to be labeled by God's name.
You cannot evade the truth of this, because Scripture records
it!  If they can receive an exalted title due to God's
commissioning, and that is not blasphemous, then it is certainly
not blasphemous for Me to claim to be the "son of God," which is
technically a lower title than "gods."

This interpretation is certainly possible, for elsewhere Jesus
indeed demonstrated His cleverness to His opponents'
disadvantage (e.g., Luke 20:1-8).  However, to quote Philips at
length, this interpretation is troublesome because of the
following considerations.

First, Jesus knew the hearts of His opponents (John 10:26-27),
and was aware that they would not listen to reason.  Shifting to
a different kind of argument to silence them seems futile.  The
Jews were not silenced, nor is there any textual hint that they
understood Jesus as claiming to be anything less than full
deity.  Judging by the audience response, shifting to a
different type of argument was ineffective.

Second, if Jesus truly had intended to argue from the greater to
the lesser, then the argument would have been more effective if
He had avoided mentioning that He was sanctified and sent by the
Father.  This statement would have further aroused His accusers,
not silenced them.

Third, the a majori ad minus movement would require that the gap
between the "unjust judges" and their title (god) would be
greater than the gap between Jesus and the title "son of God."
This argument would assume that the Jews viewed Jesus' character
as being (relatively) comparable to or perhaps (even worse for
the argument) morally superior to that of the wicked judges.
However, the Jews regarded Jesus as infinitely worse than the
judges.  The judges were merely inconsistent or disobedient
humans who lived long ago. Jesus, by contrast, was a
blasphemer.  The gap increases when one adds the psychological
factor that Jesus was a present, personal threat to them.  Thus
the Jews would not have been silenced, logically, because of
their opinion of Jesus' moral shortcomings compared with the
shortcomings of the judges in Psalm 82.

Fourth, Jesus' pattern of quotation from the Old Testament
diverges from this interpretation.  The reminder that "Scripture
cannot be broken" seems inappropriate and unnecessary if Jesus'
point hinged not on the truth of the words of the psalm, but on
semantic evasion.

Fifth, the other "prong" of Jesus' response to the charge of
blasphemy was clear and powerful (John 10:37-38). Jesus appealed
to His works, which attest the truth of His claims ("believe the
works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in
Me, and I in the Father").  To place an evasive argument in
tandem with a forceful positive argument seems inconsistent and

To be honest, I am not entirely inclined to believe that the
objections listed above necessarily disqualify Option Two as
none of them are determinative in and of themselves.  I think
that the best objection is that there is a better option, which
is more consistent both with the context and with the tone of
Jesus' argumentation.


Jesus was answering His opposition, reaffirming His unique
Sonship (a minori ad majus)

At first glance some might think that this option seems to offer
greater problems than Option Two.  For one, its proponents
historically have tended simply to assume it or to assert it.
For another, as I have already noted, detailed construction of
the view is lacking.

Regardless of this, however, the position has the advantage of
appearing to be more in harmony with the surrounding context
(particularly the second "prong" of Jesus' response) and with
the audience reaction.  Option Three can be paraphrased:

I know that you refuse to believe My claims (v. 25), and now you
accuse Me of blasphemy (v. 33).  Let Me remind you that,
incredible though it may seem, Scripture says that wicked human
beings were called by divine title, simply because they were
commissioned by God.  It was not blasphemous for them to bear
the divine label (and you cannot escape the truth of this, for
Scripture asserts it).  Therefore how much more may I, the
eternal Son of God, go by My divine title?  I have received (a
far greater) divine commission, and I bear the divine title not
by grace (as they did) but by nature.  To accuse Me of blasphemy
is ludicrous.

To contend that Jesus was arguing from the lesser to the greater
in this fashion, I feel that we (Trinitarians) must give our
critics three explanations:

1)  A reason for the change from "gods" to "Son of God."

2)  A rationale for the anarthrous occurrence of the latter

3)  A logical reconstruction for the movement from one title to
the next which avoids equivocation and yet supports the proposed

I don't see it as difficult to explain why Jesus moved from
"gods" to "Son of God" within the argument.  "Son of God" was
probably what Jesus publicly proclaimed (compare all the
references to the "Father" in the context) and would have been
what the Jews meant by the charge (see 19:7).  Thus there is no
equivocation semantically.  It should be noted that His enemies
did not contest the change as being different from what they
meant so neither should we.

Further, this was the ideal term for Jesus to state precisely
His relations to other human beings and to the Father.  Jesus
was distinct from the Father, (as Trinitarians maintain) yet He
was equal with ("one with") the Father (which we also
maintain).  Jesus was a man, yet He was qualitatively (at least)
distinct from all other men.  Jesus did not say, "I am God," but
was more precise about His relationship with the Father.  Yet
that being said it must also be noted that Jesus did not deny
that He was God (as in the charge in v. 33).  Rather, Jesus here
clarified His relationship with the Father ("sanctified/sent"),
which had to do with His right to the divine title (divine
commission).  In the immediate context the title "Son of God"
was implicit (vv. 29-30).

Just because of the anarthrous use of "Son" it is not a
convincing argument that Jesus placed Himself (by the absence of
the article) below the judges of Psalm 82.  Remember, the Jews
themselves regarded the anarthrous claim to be blasphemous and
in John 19:7 they claimed that Jesus, according to their Law
(numos), was worthy of death.  The law in question was that of
blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), and the evidence they cited was that
Jesus made Himself "Son of God" (also anarthrous).  Surely, if
the Jews had understood Jesus to be claiming anything less,
would they have not hastened to object, "You are equivocating!
Until now you have been claiming such sonship as makes you equal
with the Father" (cf. 5:18;10:30)?

I suppose one plausible explaination why Jesus specifically
chose Psalm 82 to prove His point might be that it allowed Him
to draw the sharpest contrast between those who bear the divine
title by grace (e.g., wicked humans) and those who bear it by
nature (the preexisting [sanctified/sent] Son).  Jesus was not
comparing Himself with the judges in the psalm, except at the
principial level - both received a divine commission.  The
charge had already been made that Jesus made Himself God
(10:33).  Rather, Jesus claimed that an act of the Father placed
the Son in human form (v. 36).  For those of you who understand
Greek, note that the relative clause (pros hous. . .) contains
the judges' commission while the second relative clause
(introduced by hon) highlights Jesus' divine commission.  At
this level Jesus and the judges may be compared and placed in
the same category.

However, the following contrasts (both implicit and explicit,
from the immediate and the larger contexts of Johannine themes)
provide the rationale for the a fortiori movement a minori ad
majus within the "commission" principle.

1.  The judges were conceived normally; Jesus' origin was from
above ("sanctified/sent"; cf. also 1:14, 18; 3:16).

2.  The judges were made "gods" (i.e., they were engaged
otherwise until the Word of God came to them), and both their
title and their commission were temporary;  Jesus, accused of
making Himself God (v. 33), was the preexistent Son (an
inference from "sanctified/sent"; cf. 1:1; 8:58).

3.  The judges were men to whom the Word of God came (v. 35);
Jesus was the Word incarnate (1:14).

4.  The judges were themselves to be judged for their
wickedness.  Their exalted position did not relieve them from
accountability, but rather enhanced it (Ps. 82:7-8; however,
their special commission was no less divine); Jesus is the Judge
par excellence (another of John's themes - 5:22, 27, 30; 8:16,
26; 9:39).     To deny Him as the Son of God is to blaspheme
(see also Acts 13:45; 18:6; 1 Tim. 1:13).

5.  The judges would die for their wickedness (Ps. 82:7); Jesus
is the Resurrection and the Life (11:25 - the very next
incident, which also serves as the climax of John's Gospel).


I suppose the next step would be to provide a logical
reconstruction (based on the exegetical assertions above) that
would demonstrate that the movement a minori ad majus satisfies
all the criteria previously invoked and is logically possible.

Clarification of the Problem


Richard Jungkuntz (An Approach to the Exegesis of n 10:34-36,
Concordia Seminary Monthly, 9/65) rightly takes RC Lenski (The
Interpretation of St. John's Gospel) as a representative of
those interpreters who contend that Jesus' intent was not merely
to silence His accusers, but to claim that He was indeed God in
the highest sense.  Lenski structured the argument of the
passage syllogistically as follows:

Major premise:  The Scriptures cannot be broken.

Minor premise:  The Scriptures call men commissioned by God

Conclusion:  Jesus, sanctified and sent into the world by God,
is rightly called "God" in a correspondingly higher sense.

I think Jungkuntz is right in labling Lenski's reconstruction
"elliptical" because, 1) he does not believe it follows
logically, 2) he corrects the minor premise from "Gods" to
"gods" and 3) changes the conclusion to read, "whoever is
commissioned (sanctified/sent) by God is rightly called 'god."'
Then, to fill the ellipsis in the syllogistic chain, Jungkuntz
restructures the rest of Lenski's argument with the conclusion
of the first syllogism as the major premise of the second (a
polysyllogism).  The entire reconstruction of Lenski's argument
(according to Jungkuntz) should be as follows:

Major premise:  The Scriptures cannot be broken.

Minor premise:  The Scriptures call men commissioned by God

Conclusion:  Whoever is commissioned (sanctified/sent) by God is
rightly called "god."

Then the conclusion becomes the major premise of the second
syllogism as follows:

Major premise:  Whoever is commissioned (sanctified/sent) by God
is rightly called "god."

Minor premise:  Jesus is sanctified and sent by God.

Conclusion:  Jesus is rightly called "god."

I think by this, Jungkuntz's reconstruction of Lenski's argument
effectively discards any a minori ad majus movement.  He insists
that this is actually the logical conclusion of Lenski's
construction, given these premises.  According to Jungkuntz,
this restructuring of Lenski is representative of those who
contend that Jesus is arguing a fortiori that He is God in the
highest sense; what is true of Lenski is said to be true of
others (mutatis mutandis) who structure the argument similarly.
Thus Option Three is said to be untenable according to the
requirements of logic.


To quote from Phillips again:

Interpreters of John 10 have the task of fitting together the
assertions in a way that best suits the criteria of context,
lexicography and syntax, the character of Jesus, and the whole
tone of His argumentation.  The way one interprets the direction
of the argument, and hence its value for Christology, depends on
the logical relationship that exists between the assertions of
the passage.

Phillips then goes on to show that the relationships between the
assertions derived from an analysis of the passage can be
structured to yield a valid syllogistic movement, from the
lesser to the greater, that gives support to Lenski and others
holding Option Three ("Jesus is claiming unique divine
sonship").  The main elements can be distilled into these

Assertion 1.  Jesus' claim elicited the charge of blasphemy (v.
36; see v. 33).

Assertion 2.  Within Scripture is the principle that individuals
can be called by divine title (general) by virtue of divine
commission (vv. 3435a).

Assertion 3.  Scripture cannot be broken (v. 35b).

Assertion 4.  Jesus, sanctified/sent by the Father, rightly
claimed the (specific) divine title:  huios ton theon (v. 36).

So we should begin where Jesus began - with Scripture.  Though
the phrase "Scripture cannot be broken" has many ramifications,
Jesus was affirming at least that what Scripture asserts cannot
be considered blasphemous.  This was the very reason Jesus
appealed to Scripture as His authority.  Thus it serves well as
a beginning premise for the following polysyllogism:

Major premise:  The assertions of Scripture are not

Minor premise:  Scripture asserts the principle that individuals
who are divinely commissioned can be called by divine title

Conclusion:  The principle (that individuals who are divinely
commissioned can be called by divine title [general]) is not

Then the conclusion of the first syllogism becomes the major
premise of the second syllogism as follows.

Major premise:  The principle (stated above) is not

Minor premise:  That Jesus may rightly be called by His
(specific) divine title (Son of God) is included in the
principle, a fortiori.

Conclusion:  That Jesus may rightly be called by His (specific)
divine title (Son of God) is not blasphemous.

This reconstruction answers the logical objections Jungkuntz has
raised and removes the last obstacle to selecting Option Three
as a legitimate and indeed the preferred interpretation of John


Logicians distinguish between "validity" and "soundness."
Validity has to do with whether or not an inference does in fact
follow from the premises.  Jesus' enemies would have had to
admit that, given His premises, His argument was valid.
Soundness, however, brings in the truth question:  Are the
premises true?

The Jews would have agreed with Jesus' premises until He again
claimed to be God's unique Son.  The a fortiori element (moving
from the lesser to the greater) would have been a bullet that
hits bone.  Possibly they blinked and tried to follow His
reasoning, but in the end they were not silenced, rather we read
that they were simmering.  "He's claimed it again! (we think)."
Jesus, knowing that they would not accept His words, pointed
them to the second prong of His response - His works (cf. John
8:48 with 10:21 and Luke 11:15).  In the end, however, their
problem did not rest in a deficient reasoning capacity or in 
a malfunctioning sense perception.  The problem lay in the
wickedness if their hearts.  They did not believe His words or
recognize His works because they could not receive His words or
recognize His works (John 10:26-27).

And so it is exactly at this point where believers see their Lord
at the forefront in confrontation with a world hostile to His
claims.  Many would not and have not accepted His proclamation
of deity (both in words and works) because they are not of His
fold.  Yet it remains, He still made the proclamation and made
it faithfully.


I think it is obvious that often we (Trinitarian, born-again
Christians) preach the gospel in a similar setting of antagonism. 
How "much more" (a fortiori) should we Christians who bear 
the title "sons of God" by grace (as adopted joint-heirs 
with our beloved Savior) then be faithful to proclaim 
through our own words and works the joyous news of the One 
who is by His very nature the "Son of God"?  As Moses, we too 
walk upon Holy ground when will to will the will of God.

W. Gary Phillips 
Chairman, Department of Bible and Philosophy
Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee

Bible Commentary Index
Answering Islam Home Page