Jesus and “god” – part 5 – “gods” in the Bible (Dale)

Hello boys and girls. I am “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4)

Last time, you traveled back in time, meeting what you thought were a couple of idiotically confused pagans. These people, you think, have the confusing habit of labeling things “god” or “divine” which are not also the unique and perfect creator of the cosmos. You decide to wash all this polytheistic confusion out of your mind, so you pick up your Bible. In it, you read some interesting things about gods.

I am Yahweh your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt… Do not have other gods besides Me. (Exodus 20:2-3)

“Hmmm… this doesn’t exactly rule out that there are other gods,” you reflect. “But it could be that God or the prophet are simply accommodating the ancient belief that each nation is watched over by a patron god or goddess. Maybe it was even meant sarcastically, as we’d write it in English with quotes, so as to mean “Do not have any other so-called-gods before me.” You grab a concordance, to see how the word “god” is used in the Old Testament. Sometimes indeed it is applied to entities the writer assumes to be (1) real but not properly “gods”, or (2) unreal. But in other cases:

[Saul said to the witch] “What do you see? She replied, “I see a god [other translations: gods, a ghost, a divine being, a spirit – Hebrew: elohim] coming up out of the ground.” (1 Samuel 23:13-14)

Thy throne, o god [addressing King David], is forever… (Ps 45:6, in the ancient Greek translation, and in some recent ones)

Yahweh said to Moses, look, I have made you a god to Pharoah… (Ex. 7:1)

So in the Old Testament, without irony or sarcasm, people call human ghosts, kings, and other divinely used men such as prophets “gods”. Were the writers polytheists? No – they just understood the grammar of god-talk, as previously exlored. These various beings are spoken of or addressed as “gods” because they are provident beings – beings with a domain or realm of influence – who must be honored. They “gods” are, in various ways and to various degrees, God-like.

But, those were the olden days. You recall that many theologians emphasize the point that Jews by the time of Jesus were rigidly monotheistic. You also recall people making the point that Jesus claimed to be (the one, almighty) God in no uncertain terms, and that his hearers frequently understood and were offended by this, being, after all, rigidly monotheistic Jews of that era. So, you turn to John chapter 10. There, some Jewish leaders demand to know whether or not Jesus claims to be the Messiah. (v.24) He says: yes, I already told you so, and my miraculous works confirm what I said. And he gives people secure eternal life. And, he adds “The Father and I are one.” (30)

One what? You take it as obvious that he means one being or one god. Hence, Jesus is claim to be the one God, or (what seems to be the same thing) the same being as the one God, the God of Israel. It seems that Jesus’ Jewish hearers understood him the same way. You continue:

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (31-3, NIV translation)

So Jesus claimed outright to be God. There’s no need to argue that he’s divine because other people called him “god” – he himself says he’s one god with the Father, right? To confirm your trinitarian insights, you continue on.

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods‘? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (34-9, NIV)

You now see that Jesus clarifies his intent here. First, he’s claiming to be God’s Son. Second, he points out that the scriptures call the judges who ruled the Hebrews, and other agents of God, “gods”. That isn’t blasphemous, right? All the more, then, is it appropriate for the special messenger from God, who is greater than those, to be called by the slightly less startling but Messianic title “Son of God”. Then he reiterates that he’s the Messiah, and again cites his miraculous works as showing God’s approval – the idea is, it is God, the Father who is doing these miraculous works through Jesus. They work and live in some sense “in” one another. What did he mean by saying he and his Father were “one”? Evidently, one in a common project – they both act in saving people and giving them eternal life. (28-30)

Does Jesus claim to be divine, to be a god, or to be the God? Not here. But this is just one passage.

Next time: Where is Jesus called “god” in the New Testament?