Did Jesus tell the Pharisees that they were gods? - John 10:34

[Lambano]

I suppose we need some context. (a whole chapter worth)

Now see, if the Hebrews had invented quotation marks back then, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Interesting that the NIV translators assumed a priori that the Psalmist was being sarcastic and punctuated accordingly. The Psalm makes more sense that way, but does it invalidate Jesus's proof-text in John? Does it?

Jesus probably could've slipped away from the mob while the scribes went to check their scrolls.

 

[St. SteVen]

... does it invalidate Jesus's proof-text in John?

Another good question.
I'm still trying to formulate in plain English what that discussion was about.
I'll take a shot at it.

The "Pharisees" took issue with Jesus claiming sonship with God.
Jesus pointed them to Psalm 82. Which said leaders were gods? (sons of God) ???
Since Jesus was a leader, it seemed appropriate to call himself a son of God.
Which only fueled their rage.

Does that work?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks for your response.
What you are saying seems to have some merit.
But how does that fit in the discussion Jesus was having with the "Pharisees"?

The Pharisees with a critical spirit wished to find Jesus a heretic for claiming to be God. But Jesus was saying that his claim to Deity was Scriptural on the basis that men in the Bible who were leaders were identified as being "gods," ie leaders who act on behalf of God.

The claim to be leaders on God's behalf and the claim Jesus made to represent God were both Scriptural. Jesus could not be condemned for making a claim to represent God since that was normal for all of God's leaders who claimed to represent God.

Claiming to represent God was never defined as a "sin." The claim to *be God* is to be distinguished from the claim to *represent God.* As a leader representing God Jesus made the claim to be Deity. That was either true or it wasn't. But he could not be condemned for claiming to represent God in his claims.

 

[St. SteVen]

The Pharisees with a critical spirit wished to find Jesus a heretic for claiming to be God. But Jesus was saying that his claim to Deity was Scriptural on the basis that men in the Bible who were leaders were identified as being "gods," ie leaders who act on behalf of God.

The claim to be leaders on God's behalf and the claim Jesus made to represent God were both Scriptural. Jesus could not be condemned for making a claim to represent God since that was normal for all of God's leaders who claimed to represent God.

Claiming to represent God was never defined as a "sin." The claim to *be God* is to be distinguished from the claim to *represent God.* As a leader representing God Jesus made the claim to be Deity. That was either true or it wasn't. But he could not be condemned for claiming to represent God in his claims.

That's good.
But it seems that Jesus' claim went FAR beyond that.

Verse 30
I and the Father are one.”

And here is their response:
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,”
they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

That's good.
But it seems that Jesus' claim went FAR beyond that.

Verse 30
I and the Father are one.”

And here is their response:
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,”
they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Yes, they didn't like that Jesus claimed to be God. But Jesus redirected them to his right to claim anything in the name of God. Since leaders in Israel could claim to be "gods" of a sort, ie men with the capacity to represent God, then Jesus could also claim to represent God in saying he was God.

So Jesus didn't take issue with them as to whether he was God or not--he had already claimed he was. Rather, he took issue with their denial of his right to claim that, because all Israeli leaders had the right to claim things with the authority of God--even those who were sometimes wrong, or "mere men."

Anyway, I'm not saying I'm right on this. That's just how I see it. The term "gods" in the Psalm indicate the reference was not to deities but rather, to people who presented themselves as if representative of Deity. And it was sarcastic because sometimes those who did so were misrepresentative of the God they claimed to serve.

In quoting this Psalm Jesus may have been indirectly insulting the Pharisees who themselves saw themselves as "gods." If so, on the basis of quoting this Psalm Jesus indicated they were misrepresentative of Deity and hypocritically claiming to represent God while denying Jesus the same right.

 

[St. SteVen]

Anyway, I'm not saying I'm right on this. That's just how I see it.

Well, you were on the the right track with your quick response in post #2.
Which I wanted to hear more about. I hadn't made that connection.
Turns out several other participants saw it as you did as well.

The term "gods" in the Psalm indicate the reference was not to deities but rather, to people who presented themselves as if representative of Deity. And it was sarcastic because sometimes those who did so were misrepresentative of the God they claimed to serve.

This still seems a bit strange to me. There must be more to this "gods" reference.
And Jesus may been capitalizing on the ambiguity as well. Perhaps it was already a topic of debate.
The divisiveness of the issue may have been the perfect smoke screen to throw them off. - LOL

In quoting this Psalm Jesus may have been indirectly insulting the Pharisees who themselves saw themselves as "gods." If so, on the basis of quoting this Psalm Jesus indicated they were misrepresentative of Deity and hypocritically claiming to represent God while denying Jesus the same right.

They may have seen themselves saw themselves as "gods", but I don't recall any other references to it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, you were on the the right track with your quick response in post #2.
Which I wanted to hear more about. I hadn't made that connection.
Turns out several other participants saw it as you did as well.

This still seems a bit strange to me. There must be more to this "gods" reference.
And Jesus may been capitalizing on the ambiguity as well. Perhaps it was already a topic of debate.
The divisiveness of the issue may have been the perfect smoke screen to throw them off. - LOL

They may have seen themselves saw themselves as "gods", but I don't recall any other references to it.

I've known for some time that in the commentaries we are told this Psalm identifies the "gods" not as avatars, but rather, as men in position of divine authority. They were judges or leaders who acted with divine right. They were spokesman for God when acting responsibly in their official position.

This was not republican government, but theocratic government. The leaders were almost in a sense, prophets.

John 10.35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside....

This indicates the term "gods," sarcastic or not, was predicated on the notion that God's representatives could be looked at as if God's own word at times. The "gods" were defined as those "to whom the word of God came," ie those anointed for service.

Psalm 82.6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

This indicates that being called "gods" was not a deification of men, but rather, an abbreviated, perhaps sarcastic term, indicating they were God's children who should've been able to act like God.

Again, I think Jesus meant to say that if fallible men were appointed by God to represent Him, if even in a somewhat sarcastic way, then Jesus could equally be called a "god," ie legitimately representing God. He should not be judged as a legitimate representative of God, but should be judged as to whether he was acting properly in his capacity while claiming he was God.

 

[MatthewG]

Reading the book of Judges might come in handy to an extent also when it comes to the historical background of rulers in Israel's day.

In the narrative of the Hebrew Bible, it covers the time between the conquest described in the Book of Joshua and the establishment of a kingdom in the Books of Samuel, during which biblical judges served as temporary leaders. Wikipedia

 

[MatthewG]

You know @Randy Kluth, in some churches they give a lot of flack towards women being in roles of leadership, but I think Israel got so bad no man would stand up and there was a woman named Deborah that stood up to become a leader, I never confirmed this but one day I showed up to a random church and this man who was speaking mentioned it, thought that was interesting.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You know @Randy Kluth, in some churches they give a lot of flack towards women being in roles of leadership, but I think Israel got so bad no man would stand up and there was a woman named Deborah that stood up to become a leader, I never confirmed this but one day I showed up to a random church and this man who was speaking mentioned it, thought that was interesting.

I used to be almost chauvinistic in my adherence to Paul's admonition: "I do not permit women to teach." But over the years I've benefited immensely from women teachers. They've been absolutely instrumental in my life!

So as much as I hold to the inspiration and authority of Scriptures I have to look at the role of women as adjudicated through the courts of heaven. God does allow women to teach. Paul was only stating as a matter of principle that women should not try to humiliate men when they are operating in their proper place of authority--working for their wives! ;)

 

[St. SteVen]

This indicates the term "gods," sarcastic or not, was predicated on the notion that God's representatives could be looked at as if God's own word at times. The "gods" were defined as those "to whom the word of God came," ie those anointed for service.

Thanks for another terrific post. Wanted to respond to this bit. (quoted above)

This phrase, "to whom the word of God came,", strikes me as a reference to Prophet, rather than leader.
Or even the term Priest would be closer to the target for me. These other terms are really throwing me.
A "leader", "representative", "those anointed for service"... Like a Priest, or a Prophet? ???

Jeremiah 2:1-2 NIV
The word of the Lord came to me:
2 “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem:
“This is what the Lord says: ...

2 Chronicles 11:2-3 NIV
But this word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God:
3 “Say to Rehoboam son of Solomon king of Judah and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, ...

Ezekiel 21:1 NIV
The word of the Lord came to me: ...

Luke 3:2 NIV
during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,
the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

 

[St. SteVen]

I used to be almost chauvinistic in my adherence to Paul's admonition: "I do not permit women to teach." But over the years I've benefited immensely from women teachers. They've been absolutely instrumental in my life!

So as much as I hold to the inspiration and authority of Scriptures I have to look at the role of women as adjudicated through the courts of heaven. God does allow women to teach. Paul was only stating as a matter of principle that women should not try to humiliate men when they are operating in their proper place of authority--working for their wives! ;)

This is a very good treatise on the subject.

https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/The-Role-of-Women-in-Ministry

 

[Wrangler]

What do you make of this?

The word ‘god’ has more than one sense. In this sense, it is one in authority.

A trinitarian deception is to suppose there is only one god and lord. There are dozens in Scripture and 1,000’s or even millions of REAL lowercase gods in this sense.

 

[St. SteVen]

The word ‘god’ has more than one sense. In this sense, it is one in authority.

Thanks for your reply.
This topic has been educational for me.
Everyone is seeing the "authority" aspect, which I hadn't even considered.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks for another terrific post. Wanted to respond to this bit. (quoted above)

This phrase, "to whom the word of God came,", strikes me as a reference to Prophet, rather than leader.
Or even the term Priest would be closer to the target for me. These other terms are really throwing me.
A "leader", "representative", "those anointed for service"... Like a Priest, or a Prophet? ???

Jeremiah 2:1-2 NIV
The word of the Lord came to me:
2 “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem:
“This is what the Lord says: ...

2 Chronicles 11:2-3 NIV
But this word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God:
3 “Say to Rehoboam son of Solomon king of Judah and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, ...

Ezekiel 21:1 NIV
The word of the Lord came to me: ...

Luke 3:2 NIV
during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,
the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

You got a point! Some of the commentaries suggest the reference in the Psalm was to judges in Israel who judged by the word of God and were considered like God Himself. Theophanies in the OT were angels that appeared like men.

But in this case, Jesus makes it sound like he is identifying specifically with the Prophets. And they very much represented God to the people.

I should think, in that case, that Jesus is calling upon the Pharisees to judge what his claim was as from a prophet, or not? It is one thing to reject the theory that God can appear as a man. It is another thing entirely to discern the spirit of a prophet as coming from God or not.

Anyway, interesting subject...

 

[St. SteVen]

Anyway, interesting subject...

Yes, and thanks again for your participation.

Jesus defines who the "gods" are "... to whom the word of God came..." - John 10:35 (pasted below)
Which strikes me as Prophet. One who speaks from God.

Unless Jesus is referring to those that received the scriptures?
The word of God being on scrolls, to those who received it.
But is the Psalmist and Jesus calling them gods?

Just not sure why they would be called gods by the Psalmist, or Jesus.
Even calling a Prophet god seems like a long shot. Interesting passages.

John 10:34-35 NIV
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[c]?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—

 

[Wrangler]

Even calling a Prophet god seems like a long shot.

Only because you’ve been indoctrinated with trinitarian-double-speak.

Here is how a prophet is a god. A bunch of yahoos are debating scripture meaning. St SteVen joins the fracas and announces
‘YHWH told me last night you’d be having this debate and to tell all of you this …’

Who do you suppose has the authoritative meaning of scripture, the yahoos or Saint SteVen?

 

[St. SteVen]

Only because you’ve been indoctrinated with trinitarian-double-speak.

Here is how a prophet is a god. A bunch of yahoos are debating scripture meaning. St SteVen joins the fracas and announces
‘YHWH told me last night you’d be having this debate and to tell all of you this …’

Who do you suppose has the authoritative meaning of scripture, the yahoos or Saint SteVen?

Leave me out of it. - LOL
Sorry I'm being thick-headed here, I still don't see the connection between a Prophet and a god.
Unless it has to do with superstitions concerning those with insights beyond our realm. ???

 

[Wrangler]

Leave me out of it. - LOL
Sorry I'm being thick-headed here, I still don't see the connection between a Prophet and a god.
Unless it has to do with superstitions concerning those with insights beyond our realm. ???

No. It has nothing to do with the superstitions. By definition, prophets speak the word of God yes?

 

[MatthewG]

I used to be almost chauvinistic in my adherence to Paul's admonition: "I do not permit women to teach." But over the years I've benefited immensely from women teachers. They've been absolutely instrumental in my life!

So as much as I hold to the inspiration and authority of Scriptures I have to look at the role of women as adjudicated through the courts of heaven. God does allow women to teach. Paul was only stating as a matter of principle that women should not try to humiliate men when they are operating in their proper place of authority--working for their wives! ;)

Well good on ya.

Women are an amazing gift from God.

He even gives some peoples wives of understanding and that is a blessing for some men who understand that.

I am not offended by women teaching at all; and find it to be a good thing and it reminds me that all in Christ are one together.

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭26‬-‭29‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Galatians 3:26-29 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is | New King James Version (NKJV)

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew no...

bible.com

“But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭3‬:‭8‬-‭11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Colossians 3:11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all. | New King James Version (NKJV) | Download The Bible App Now

where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

bible.com

“Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭11‬-‭22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Ephesians 2:11-22 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being al | New King James Version (NKJV)

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— t...

bible.com