"31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 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.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming’, because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
40 He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing at first, and there he remained. 41 And many came to him. And they said, “John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.” 42 And many believed in him there."
John 10:31-42
The Jews make clear the nature of their objection to Jesus in 33: 'Thou being a man, makest Thyself God'. This to them was the unendurable claim. They recognised it as a claim to Deity. The starkness of the alternatives stand out here, either He was what He claimed to be or He was a blasphemer or devil-possessed or mad. No other possibilities are open to be considered. Our Lord's answer in 34-36 is full of significance. The quotation He makes from Scripture is found in Psalm 82, where the reference is to princes who are set in authority over the people by the appointment of God. Such is the force of the phrase 'unto whom the word of God came'. And they were called 'gods' in this sense. Obviously it is a limited use of the word but Jesus takes it up and says, 'If princes who are merely men are called gods, He Who is the eternal Son of the Father can surely not be justly chargeable with blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God'. Christ's use of the Scripture here is also significant. The whole point of His argument, as Ryle rightly points out, hinges on the divine authority of a single word. 'And then, having quoted the text, He lays down the great principle; 'the Scripture cannot be broken'. It is as though He said, 'Wherever the Scripture speaks plainly on any subject there can be no more question about it. The case is settled and decided. Every jot and title of Scripture is true and must be received as conclusive.''