John 10:35

My Notes

What Does John 10:35 Mean?

John 10:35 contains a parenthetical statement that has massive implications for how you treat Scripture: "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken."

Jesus is in the middle of an argument. The Jews have picked up stones because He said "I and my Father are one" (verse 30). His defense references Psalm 82:6, where God called human judges "gods" — and then He drops this clause: "and the scripture cannot be broken." The Greek ou dunatai luthēnai — it is impossible to be loosed, dissolved, annulled, or invalidated. Scripture cannot be broken. Period.

The statement is almost incidental to the argument Jesus is making — which makes it more powerful, not less. He says it in passing, as an assumed truth that requires no defense. Of course Scripture can't be broken. Everyone in the conversation knows that. It's the shared premise on which the entire argument rests. If Scripture could be broken — if it could fail, contradict itself, or be invalidated — the argument wouldn't work. But Jesus builds His defense on the assumed indestructibility of the text. And in doing so, He makes the strongest possible statement about Scripture's authority: it cannot be loosened. Not a single phrase. Not a single word. Not even a word from an obscure psalm used in a secondary argument. The scripture cannot be broken.

Reflection Questions

• 1.Do you treat all of Scripture as unbreakable — or do you have a mental category for passages you've set aside as no longer binding?
• 2.How does Jesus' casual, assumed certainty ('of course it can't be broken') challenge the way you handle difficult or uncomfortable texts?
• 3.What parts of Scripture have you been treating as negotiable that Jesus' statement here puts back on the table?
• 4.If the scripture's indestructibility reflects its Author's nature, what does your treatment of the text reveal about your view of God?

Devotional

The scripture cannot be broken. Jesus said it in passing — as a given, not an argument. As if it were so obvious it didn't need defense. Of course the scripture can't be broken. Everyone in the room already knows that. And the casual certainty of the statement is what gives it its weight.

Jesus doesn't say Scripture is useful or inspiring or generally reliable. He says it cannot be broken. Cannot — ou dunatai — it's not possible. The word of God doesn't have a failure mode. It doesn't have an expiration date. It doesn't contain clauses that can be loosened or annulled by changing culture, advancing knowledge, or evolving sensibilities. What God said stands. Not because the text is magical. Because the God behind the text is unbreakable. The Scripture's indestructibility is an extension of its Author's nature.

If you've been treating Scripture as negotiable — picking the parts you like, dismissing the parts that make you uncomfortable, assuming certain passages have been rendered obsolete by modern understanding — Jesus' casual statement in the middle of a completely different argument should stop you. He didn't build this claim up with paragraphs of defense. He assumed it. As the baseline. As the floor of every theological conversation. The scripture cannot be broken. If your approach to the Bible includes a category for "breakable" portions, your approach doesn't match Jesus'. He treated every word — even an obscure phrase from Psalm 82 — as unbreakable, authoritative, and permanently binding.

Commentary

Trusted original commentary from respected historical Bible scholars and theologians.

Cross References

Related passages throughout Scripture