Arguing that the Gospel of John presents only a functional equality between the Father and the Son:
[John
10:36] is part of an extended chain of argument by Jesus against the charge of
having intended to put himself on a par with God. His pointing to the
Scriptures and arguing a minori ad majus would be unfitting if they were
meant to serve as proof for a unity of substance. None of the audience would
possibly have concluded from Ps. 82:6 that judges, in their function as God’s
representatives, partook in divine substance. The most that could be concluded
is that they stood in a special relationship with the one who commissioned
them. The proximity to God of the one who may exclusively call himself ‘Son of
God’ must be much greater. All this is only recognisable to Jesus’ audience via
his deeds (verse 38c-e). He and the Father are one because he performs only God’s
deeds. Only the one who is commissioned by God, the one who does and says everything
in accordance with the Father is capable of being God’s representative. (Ulrich Busse, “Open Questions on John 10,”
in The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context, ed. Johannes
Beutler and Robert T. Fortna [Society For New Testament Studies Monograph Series
57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 15-16)