|
Listen to this post:
|
You think that Jesus was good. But do you also think that Jesus was smart? So smart, that you have to carefully weigh his statements and carefully parse his arguments?
I do.
In this post, I submit his argument in a famous exchange in John 10 to philosophical analysis. I think it is a forceful and brilliant argument, and one that many readers and even commenters don’t fully appreciate the force of.
So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
Jesus answered, “I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me; but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.”
The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.”
Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ – and the scripture cannot be annulled – can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands. (John 10)
Most people don’t realize the brilliance of Jesus’s argument that is packed tightly into the last portion here. Here is an analysis of it. Merely assumed premises are in brackets; the rest are either stated or obviously follow from things stated.
- The scriptures do not blaspheme. (premise)
- The Scriptures address human recipients of God’s message as “gods.” (Psalm 82)
- The Scriptures do not blaspheme when they address human recipients of God’s message as “gods.” (1, 2)
- Jesus is God’s Messiah. (“the one whom the Father… sent into the world”) (premise)
- [Jesus is greater than those human recipients of God’s message.] (4)
- [The title “Son of God” (i.e. Messiah) is a less exalted title than “god” or “God”.] (unstated premise)
- Therefore, it is not blasphemy to describe Jesus as God’s Son. (3, 5, 6)
Jesus’s opponents grant 1 and 2, and so they must grant 3, which follows from 1 and 2. They would also grant that 4 implies 5. But they’re resisting 4, though Jesus has given them plenty of evidence for 4, in the form of his miraculous works, given him by God to validate his ministry. His opponents also assume, and would have to grant 6, and that 7 follows from 3, 5, and 6. If calling these lesser people “gods” isn’t bad, then it just can’t be bad to give this greater person (the Messiah) the lesser description, God’s Son.
In sum, the whole issue hinges on 4. The argument is valid (3 follows from 1 and 2, and 7 follows from 3, 5, and 6), and they would have to grant all the other other premises (1, 2, 6). In their blind anger, they want to say that he’s blaspheming by saying that he and God are “one” (i.e. working together). But that charge of blasphemy, Jesus brilliantly and forcefully points out, depends wholly on their stubborn belief, against the preponderance of evidence available to them, that Jesus is not God’s Messiah. Deftly, he shows how their charge of blasphemy assumes the very point at issue; it assumes that he’s not the Messiah. They are desperate to change the subject to alleged disrespectful speech, and so away from Jesus’s miraculous works, which he keeps bringing back to the forefront, because those are the most relevant evidence.
Jesus assumes they can still turn this around, so he urges them at the end of the passage above to again consider the evidence: “even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know… that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” That is, God really is with him, and they really are working together. But this gets only an angry response. They persist in their blindness.
In my experience, readers often don’t realize that 5 and 6 are in play. Often, because it fits their theology, they seize on the Jews’ reaction, “you… are making yourself God” (or “a god,” it can be translated). They don’t notice that Jesus corrects them about what he’s claiming! “I said, ‘I am God’s Son‘” – which in this gospel means that he’s the Messiah. (See the start of the passage – “I have told you”!)
See? Smart. So smart, that if you don’t work at it, you won’t fully feel the force of his argument. But his opponents did, to their own shame. We have an advantage over them: a written record, which we can ponder at length, if we choose.
Do you?
Pingback: Jesus’s argument in John 10 | Blogging Theology
“What my Father has given me is greater than all else,
and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.”
This doesn’t make sense.
Only a small minority of translations are translated in this sense. I only go with the KJV.
“My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all”.
If you take Jesus statement “I and my Father are one” as referring to this statement immediately prior which he made about the Father: “….is greater than all” then it becomes clear why the Jews accused him of blasphemy. He was asserting his identity with the Father in terms of the Father’s greatness. This the most natural, straightforward and logical interpretation of the passage in it’s context. It is clear that the Jews understood it in this way. No need, in my view, to look for the meaning of the verse 30 outside of the immediate context. It is there in verse 29.
Jesus is arguing from his use of Psalm 82 that the Son of God is greater than the gods of Psalm 82 because he was sanctified and sent in to the world directly by the Father. This agrees with premise # 5. Premise 6 argues to the contrary. The logic is messed up I’m afraid.
5 and 6 are self-contradictory here. 6 is a unitarian invention.
No, they are not self-contradictory. 6 isn’t a Unitarian invention either. Check Maurice Casey, Geza Vermes, Adela Yarbro-Collins, James Dunn and others. Son of God had a culture-specific meaning DIFFERENT from what it later came to mean when Gentile acculturation took place.
@Dale
Jesus used Psalm 82 in his defense because he’s trying to point out that if mere mortals can be called QEOS , then, how much more is he who is in very nature, God?
Jesus said,” I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand…I and my Father are one ” ( John 10:28-30). The oneness of the Father and the Son in the context is in terms of ability and hence, of ontology (nature) not of function.
Your ability is the reason you function.
On the other hand, function is what you do.
an excellent and concise exegesis and explanation of John 10.
@Talitha: “Thank you both for your thoughtful responses and the homework”
My pleasure:-)
BTW, you made the following good point:
“Their accusation: ‘You are making yourself God/god’, should be understood to be in way we use it in English today: ‘Who died and made you boss?/ She thinks she’s God-so snotty!’”
I’ve offered similar comments in the past. One could illustrate the sense in which the Jews felt Jesus was making himself “God” or “a god” this way:
Let’s say that it’s 1950, and Hitler has been found alive in the U.S. He’s been apprehended and brought to trial for his crimes. In one of life’s great ironies, the prosecuting attorney happens to be a Jew. While this attorney is delivering his opening statement, piling charge upon charge, reminding the court of the unspeakable atrocities committed by this megalomaniacal monster, he turns to Hitler and in a stentorian cry of righteous indignation, he declares, “You ought to die, because, although a mere man, you made yourself [a] God”!
Did the attorney believe that Hitler was ontologically “God” or “a god”? No. Did the attorney believe that Hitler believed that he was ontologically “God” or “a god”? No. The attorney was charging Hitler criminally assuming the role of “God” or “a god” by doing what only God has the right to do. Likewise, Christ’s accusers made a pretense of concluding that Jesus did and claimed what only God had the right to do or claim.
@ Talitha
You’re welcome 🙂
BTW, a rather … er … “essential” comment, yours, bearing in mind that, apparently, you “literally woke up this morn with a question to pose” and that you proclaimed to be “excited to have this new lead for a q”, not to mention that you “have been praying about for over a year” … 😉
That was supposed to be a cute little smiley face at the end, not a bunch of question marks. Stupid iOS 8, or was that YOU, Dale?
@ Sean and Mario-
Thank you both for your thoughtful responses and the homework????.
@John: “Surely Chist was delivering an insult to the ‘venerated men’ of his time that they were being hypocritical in accusing Him of blasphemy – and implying they had mis-ruled and would themselves soon be judged?”
So, I’ll set aside my reluctance to agree with James White for a moment;-) The notion that Christ’s accusers here had counterparts in the unjust judges and would themselves receive judgment from God certainly seems to be a valid *application* of the text, and it’s possible that Jesus was offering a double entendre consisting of both a primary response along with such unstated implications. The problem for us as interpreters is that this application isn’t made by Jesus or John, and so there’s no way of knowing for sure whether he meant to suggest this or not. The mere fact that we can infer that it’s true doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus had such an application in mind, especially since his explicit response sans this extended application satisfactorily meets the needs of an adequate reply in context.
@ Talitha
[8:13 am] “Their accusation: ‘You are making yourself God/god’ [John 10:33], should be understood to be in way we use it in English today: ‘Who died and made you boss?/ She thinks she’s God-so snotty!’”
Except that, in response to Jesus’ “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), instead of resorting to sarcastic expressions like the English ones above to “put him in his place”, “the Jews” immediately “picked up rocks again [see John 8:59] to stone him to death” (John 10:31) …
… more like mafia thugs than like respectable Jewish authorities, methinks …
[8:50 am] ARE THERE ANY EXAMPLES OF MOU BEING USED WITH THEOS FOR AN EXALTED HUMAN BEING?
I think the answer to your question should be given in the ampler context of the use of ho theos.
This is the rule that I have come up with from a thorough exam of the Scriptures:
In the Scriptures (NT and also LXX) the Greek expression ho theos, when used absolutely, without complements and/or qualifiers, is ONLY referred to THE One and Only God.
For an example of ho theos used WITH a complement and/or qualifier, here are the words of doubting Thomas when he meets the resurrected Jesus:
“My Lord and my God!” [Grk: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou] (John 20:28)
A more literal translation of the Genitive Singular Pronoun mou would be “of me”.
The “of me”, in this case is the complement/qualifier. Similarly, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where the complement/qualifier of theou (Genitive Singular form of theos) is êmôn, “our” (lit. “of ours”).
But there is another example that is, IMO, conclusive, 2 Cor 4:3-4, because it confirms that the qualified expression ho theos is NOT necessarily referred to [the] God [ho theos, in the absolute sense] —in fact it is referred, in this case, even to God’s enemy, Satan! BUT, when it is un-qualified, absolute, it always and invariably refers to [the] God [ho theos]: THE One and Only God.
For the full argument, see my Journal post at Beliefnet Community, “Jesus, ‘ho theos’ … qualified” (community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2012/04/13/jesus,_ho_theos_…_qualified)
@Talitha: “ANY DOCUMENTATION OF JEWS DIRECTLY ADDRESSING A “THEOS” AS “MY GOD”?”
I’m not aware of any, but that may be partially due to opportunities, i.e. there would be limited circumstances in which such usage would be considered appropriate. However, if someone could say that an agent of God is “your god”, then wouldn’t it logically follow that you could call that agent “my god” as long as you did so with the understanding that this is done because the agent was acting as God legally?
Years ago I read a very good book entitled “Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology”, by M. Boismard, wherein the author did a good job showing how Moses is in the background in John’s development of Jesus.
See: http://www.amazon.com/Christology-Bibliotheca-Ephemeridum-Theologicarum-Lovaniensium/dp/9068314475/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416579455&sr=8-1&keywords=moses+or+jesus%2C+boismard
When I contemplated parallels between Moses and Jesus, I couldn’t help but recall how Moses was God to Pharaoh (Ex. 7:1) and how Jesus is God to us. Moses was God to Pharaoh by bringing God’s judgment to him, while Jesus is God to us by bringing God’s salvation to us. Boismard has a glimpse of this truth, but rejects it because of faulty exegesis of another verse:
“In fact, when Jesus appears to Thomas in the fourth Gospel, the apostle makes the profession of faith: ‘My Lord and my God’ (Jn 20:28). Jesus is therefore the ‘God’ of Thomas. The use of the possessive could suggest that the title ‘God’ could be taken in what could be called a ‘functional’ sense. Jesus is Thomas’s ‘God’ in the sense that, saved from death, Jesus would be the principle of salvation for his disciples. But this does not seem to be the case, since in 1 John 5:20, probably by the same author, the title ‘God’ is explicitly given to ‘Jesus Christ’.” (ibid, p. 123)
Notice that Boismard understands that the interpretation I’ve suggested is possible, but he rejects it based on the assumption that Jesus is called ‘God’ at 1 John 5:20. Interestingly, many scholars would say that Jesus is not called ‘God’ at 1 John 5:20, and so the only objection to a representational interpretation that Boismard offers can be set aside as inconclusive at best, and probably just plain wrong! As Murray J. Harris observed in his important study “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus”:
“Although it is certainly possible that [hOUTOS] refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to ‘the true one,’ God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, [hOUTOS] = God, is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and, significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter.” (p. 253)
@Sean and John
Sean says to John: Neyrey and James F. McGrath take the “gods” at Ps. 82 to be the Israelites at Sinai
IT WAS NEYREY’S ARTICLE (SEE FIRST POST IN THIS STAND) THAT HAS HAD ME THINKING FOR THE PAST SIX MONTHS ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN AN PERSON BEING DECLARED “THEOS” AND IMMORTALITY/INCORRUPTABILITY. I WONDERED IF THIS WOULD GIVE INSIGHT TO THOMAS’ CONFESSION OF J. AS “MY LORD AND MY GOD”. I HAD ALWAYS WONDERED WHY CONFIRMING JESUS’ RESURRECTION (BY TOUCHING WOUNDS) WOULD CAUSE HIM TO SAY THIS.
Sean in same post: If Kobelski’s restoration is correct, it would show just how exalted an agent of God could be understood to be by monotheistic Jews in biblical period, i.e. not just “god” or “a god” but “your God”.
SEAN I LITERALLY WOKE UP THIS MORN WITH A QUESTION TO POSE TO ALL OF YOU: ARE THERE ANY EXAMPLES OF MOU BEING USED WITH THEOS FOR AN EXALTED HUMAN BEING?
EXCITED TO HAVE THIS NEW LEAD FOR A Q. I’VE BEEN PRAYING ABOUT FOR OVER A YEAR. IS THERE JEWISH TRAD. THAT MELCH. WAS IMMORTAL- I’M THINKING YES.
ANY DOCUMENTATION OF JEWS DIRECTLY ADDRESSING A “THEOS” AS “MY GOD”?
Talitha on Nov. 17 post:
“Aren’t the Pharisees initially ticked because he’s judging them for their unrighteousness in the parable of the shepherd/ gate) ( just like the men in Psalm 82 for their unrighteousness?”
By saying that he and God were one, Jesus gave a final push to a sacred cow that he had already begun tipping in his judgement of the Jewish leaders earlier in the chapter and throughout John. (The cow: They were God’s sons and would not be judged like the “sinners” around them).
Their accusation: “You are making yourself God/god”, should be understood to be in way we use it in English today: “Who died and made you boss?/ She thinks she’s God-so snotty!”
In other words, I think they’re saying something like: You have no right to speak a word of judgement about us (by parable). You are being far too familiar in your associaition with God. How can you, a man with no (wordly) authority say you are united with Him in purpose? You haven’t even plainly told us that you claim to be the Christ.
@Mario: I won’t be reading anymore of your posts, so if you address something to me, it will only be considered, if at all, by the others who post here.
@Dale: May I suggest that you introduce a feature on your blog which allows posters to click “ignore this person”, so that we can focus on comments that are meaningful and productive sans the attitude that some seem incapable of setting aside?
~Sean
~Sean
@ John
“Surely Christ was delivering an insult to the ‘venerated men’ of his time that they were being hypocritical in accusing Him of blasphemy – and implying they had mis-ruled and would themselves soon be judged?”
I believe you have it absolutely correct: not only what Jesus says, but, most of all, what he tacitly implies. By only quoting the beginning of Ps 82:6 (‘I said, you are gods’ – John 10:34) Jesus is clearly hinting, not only at the rest of Ps 82:6, but also at the rest of the couplet:
“6 I thought, ‘You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.’ 7 Yet you will die like mortals; you will fall like all the other rulers.” (Ps 82:6-7)
Jesus provoked “the Jews” in front of him, by saying-implying something like this:
“It is you and your rabbis who understand the ‘gods’ in Psalm 82 as the unjust judges who, though they have been given the title ‘gods’ because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. So, beware, if you use the ‘god argument’ against me (and I have NEVER affirmed that I am God), I can retort it against you, using your own understanding of the word ‘god’. More, I offer to those who follow me eternal life (John 10:28), but you are not worthy of it, and, in spite of your quasi-divine function, ‘you will die like [mere] men; you will fall like [all other] rulers’ [free but authentic interpretation of the text and subtext of John 10:34]
[John:] Is it correct to say that the Jews believed that only God could announce His Messiah – so anyone claiming to be Messiah would be considered to be blasphemous?
[Sean:] J.C. O’Neill offers a compelling argument [sic] for just such an understanding in his book “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?”
[Sean:] … if O’Neill is correct [sic], then there may have been a law [sic] that became part of the tradition which Jesus broke by claiming to be God’s Son, which was understood as a claim to be the Messiah. Since such a law doesn’t exist in written form [uh hu …], we can only guess what the possible wording might have been like [LOL!]. O’Neill believed [sic] that according to the law God was to reveal His Messiah, and so by claiming this status for himself, Jesus was usurping God’s authority by failing to wait on God to make his messianic status known. It’s speculative [sic], but it seems to do a pretty good job making sense of the texts.”
[Mario:] Now, how artificially contrived is that? Someone wants to have his cake and eat it too …
[Sean:] Not contrived at all, but merely sensitive to the historical data.
COMMENT
“Sensitive to the historical data”? Aw c’mon! That surely requires a lot of “ifs”: “if O’Neill is correct” … “there may have been a law” … “such a law doesn’t exist in written form” … “O’Neill believed” … “it’s speculative” … 🙁
“Are you suggesting that some Jews believed that the ‘agent’ was somehow ‘the principal’?
At the heart of the shiliah principle is the notion that “the agent is equated with the principal”, and so the agent is as the principal in that sense. To say that Melchizadek could be viewed by someone as “your God” could be a striking application of this principle.
“Sean do you not think that the truth is as follows –
The Jews believed that ‘those to whom the Law was given were ‘gods’
Therefore we say that magistrates and judges referred to as ‘gods’
Christ was saying in effect that since he was transmitting ‘the word of God’ that he was ‘ a god’
(but NOT God) so He could not be guilty of blasphemy.
The lack of definite article in the Greek text rules out the possibility of the ‘god’ being referred to as YHWH.”syanthropos on poieis seauton theos””
I don’t know that the lack of the definite article rules out the possibility of the god being referred to as YHWH. In Greek a noun can be definite or indefinite without the article, and if it’s definite it would be equivalent to hO QEOS even with no article. For example, you could say that “George Bush was the President of the United States” or “George was President of the United States” and “President” in both sentences would be definite. IMO, context rules out a definite QEOS at John 10:30, not necessarily grammar.
“Surely Chist was delivering an insult to the ‘venerated men’ of his time that they were being hypocritical in accusing Him of blasphemy – and implying they had mis-ruled and would themselves soon be judged?”
Hmmm… that sounds an awful lot like an argument I heard James White offer, and I’m not sure I have it in me to agree with James White! 😉
“Now, how artificially contrived is that? Someone wants to have his cake and eat it too …”
Not contrived at all, but merely sensitive to the historical data.
Sean: “… there was no law against *being* God’s Son (=Messiah)”,
Mario: “… so the “Jews’ charge at John 19:7? is just an excuse, nay, a fake.”
Sean: “It certainly was a monkey trial, but, if O’Neill is correct, then there may have been a law that became part of the tradition which Jesus broke by claiming to be God’s Son, which was understood as a claim to be the Messiah. Since such a law doesn’t exist in written form, we can only guess what the possible wording might have been like. O’Neill believed [sic] that according to the law God was to reveal His Messiah, and so by claiming this status for himself, Jesus was usurping God’s authority by failing to wait on God to make his messianic status known. It’s speculative [sic], but it seems to do a pretty good job making sense of the texts.”
COMMENT
Now, how artificially contrived is that? Someone wants to have his cake and eat it too … 😉
Sean
‘If Kobelskis interpretation is correct it would show how an exalted agent of God could be understood to be by monotheistic Jews in biblical period , i.e. not ‘god’ or ‘a god’ but ‘your God’.
Are you suggesting that some Jews believed that the ‘agent’ was somehow ‘the principal’?
Sean do you not think that the truth is as follows –
The Jews believed that ‘those to whom the Law was given were ‘gods’
Therefore we say that magistrates and judges referred to as ‘gods’
Christ was saying in effect that since he was transmitting ‘the word of God’ that he was ‘ a god’
(but NOT God) so He could not be guilty of blasphemy.
The lack of definite article in the Greek text rules out the possibility of the ‘god’ being referred to as YHWH.”syanthropos on poieis seauton theos”
Surely Chist was delivering an insult to the ‘venerated men’ of his time that they were being hypocritical in accusing Him of blasphemy – and implying they had mis-ruled and would themselves soon be judged?
Blessings
John
Talitha: “So, it seems one of these two interpretive choices ( give or take details) of Ps. 82 would have been Jesus’ view”
Possibly, yet there are other proposals that have won support. Jerome Neyrey points out that four views find support in the midrashic literature:
“In the 1960s, a debate emerged over the interpretation of Ps 82:6-7 in relation to John 10:34-36, the general lines of which were summarized by Anthony Hanson. He called attention to four different ways in which Psalm 82 was understood in Jewish traditions, with reference to (a) angels, (b) Melchizedek, (c) judges, and (d) Israel at Sinai. All four interpretations are attested to in midrashic literature, but which one relates to John10:34-36?” (https://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.html)
Neyrey and James F. McGrath take the “gods” at Ps. 82 to be the Israelites at Sinai. In John’s Apologetic Christology, McGrath states that others understand the “gods” to be prophets, though I’ve never personally come across anyone who held that view.
In 11QMelchizadek, the ELOHIM of Ps. 82 is Melchizadek. See:
http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/newtestament/hebrews/PrimReadMelch.htm
Interestingly, Paul J. Kobelski restored a fragmentary part of the text to read:
“But ‘Your God’ is [Melchizedek who will res]c[ue them from] the hand of Belial.” (Melchizedek and Melchiresa, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 10), p. 9
If Kobelski’s restoration is correct, it would show just how exalted an agent of God could be understood to be by monotheistic Jews in biblical period, i.e. not just “god” or “a god” but “your God”.
Mario: “Once in a while we seem to agree: “there was no law against *being* God’s Son (=Messiah)”,
Sean: I’m sorry; I’m sure that was very painful for you to realize, and you no doubt struggled to find reason to disagree but found yourself unable to do so.
Mario: “so the “Jews’ charge at John 19:7? is just an excuse, nay, a fake.”
Sean: It certainly was a monkey trial, but, if O’Neill is correct, then there may have been a law that became part of the tradition which Jesus broke by claiming to be God’s Son, which was understood as a claim to be the Messiah. Since such a law doesn’t exist in written form, we can only guess what the possible wording might have been like. O’Neill believed that according to the law God was to reveal His Messiah, and so by claiming this status for himself, Jesus was usurping God’s authority by failing to wait on God to make his messianic status known. It’s speculative, but it seems to do a pretty good job making sense of the texts.
@Dale,
I believe the “heavenly being”view (if true) would change the game as follows:
1. Your original post says Jesus was defending the title “Son of God for Himself.
2. Jesus did this by showing that humans who were lower than Him were called “gods” and He was greater than them so why shouldn’t He be called the “Son of God?”
3. Following this same line of reasoning; if Jesus is referring the Jews to heavenly beings (bene Elohim perhaps) then He is saying that He is greater than these beings.
4. It’s possible Jesus is defending His title as the Son of God by saying He is divine in a higher sense than these spiritual beings.
This isn’t supposed to be a lockdown argument. I suppose it’s possible that Jesus just could be pulling rank on these heavenly beings because we all agree that He is higher than all others (excluding the Father) in rank.
@ Dale
[Mario – November 14, 2014 at 10:42 pm] “I believe there is no evidence, in John’s Gospel, that Jesus really had ‘plainly’ told the Jews that he was the Messiah”.
[Dale – November 17, 2014 at 12:32 pm] “Well, there’s plain as in explicit statement (‘I am the Messiah’) – which he won’t want to do, lest his words be quoted back to him in trial …”
That Jesus would not say explicitly “I am the Messiah”, “lest his words be quoted back to him in trial” is a strawman. As not only I, but, before me, Sean says, “there was no law against *being* God’s Son (=Messiah)”, so “the Jews’ charge at John 19:7” is just an *excuse*, nay, a fake.
@ Talitha
“… it seems one of these two interpretive choices (…) of Ps. 82 would have been Jesus’ view: #1 angelic beings in the divine counsel … OR # 2 the Isrealite leadership who received the word (Torah) …”
Once again, Carl Mosser argues that those referred to as “gods” and “sons of the Most High” (John 10:34-36, Ps 82:6) are humans in general, or, at least, Israelites in general.
“I’m still confused how Jesus is arguing that the title, “The Son of God/ Messiah” is LOWER than the use [of “gods”] in Psalm 82. Isn’t his point that he is higher than them (be it angels or men), therefore he is right to assert his authority and say the things he says about himself.”
On the contrary, Jesus claims that The Son of God/ Messiah (“the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world”) is much HIGHER than the “gods”: Jesus’ argument (John 10:34-35) is a typical “a fortiori” argument.
Grrrrr….”accept” not “except” . Please ACCEPT me despite dorky and excessive posts. ; )
Sorry- poor editing. Meant to say:
Also, a concern in John is that they don’t except or understand the the eschatological nature of his anointing, esp. it’s connection to resurrection, so supportive and hostile Jews hear his statements as craziness, delusion, or a man who is too familiar in his talk about YWHW. Eg., He called God His own Father; forgave sins, gives life to the world ; AND in John 10 said that he and God were one (hen).
So, it seems one of these two interpretive choices ( give or take details) of Ps. 82 would have been Jesus’ view:
#1 angelic beings in the divine counsel (“to whom the word of God came “, assumingly before they mediated it to humans)
OR
# 2 the Isrealite leadership who received the word (Torah) but failed to live up to their role as righteous judges and lost covenant blessings ( You will never enter My rest).
WHICHEVER one we choose, I’m still confused how Jesus is arguing that the title, “The Son of God/ Messiah” is LOWER than the use in Psalm 82. Isn’t his point that he is higher than them (be it angels or men), therefore he is right to assert his authority and say the things he says about himself.
Aren’t the Pharisees initially ticked because he’s judging them for their unrighteousness in the parable of the shepherd/ gate) ( just like the men in Psalm 82 for their unrighteousness? Also, a concern in John is that they don’t except or understand the mother cause of conflict is a misunderstanding of the eschatological nature of his anointing, esp. it’s connection to resurrection, so they hear his statements as craziness, delusion, or a man who is too familiar in his talk about YWHW- because he called God His own Father; forgave sins, gives life to the world , AND in John 10 said He and God were one (hen).
@ Aaron and Dale
[Aaron – November 14, 2014 at 9:37 pm] “Have you heard of the view that Psalm 82 is not directed to human rulers but to heavenly beings? If this were the case in Psalm 82 it would change the game.”
[Dale – November 17, 2014 at 12:29 pm] “No – what do you think would follow if Ps 82 was originally meant in regard to non-human beings? Why would that be a “game-changer”?”
I had already remarked, in my comment at podcast episode 60 – Dr. Carl Mosser on deification in the Bible, that the article by Carl Mosser, “The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents and the Origin of Christian Deification” (for which you, Dale, kindly provided the link at jts.oxfordjournals.org) is definitely worth reading.
Few comments follow.
a. Psalm 82 is most important to Christans because it is used by Jesus, who quotes Ps 82:6a in John 10:34, in the more general context of his argument in defense of the legitimacy of calling himself the “Son of God” (John 10:34-36).
b. Ps 82:1 seems to be open to different interpretations: perhaps the “gods” to whom God speaks are (b1) pagan gods (who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion), or (b2) human judges or rulers, or (b3) angelic/heavenly beings (elohiym sometimes refers to angelic/heavenly beings – see Gen 3:5; Ps 8:5)
c. But b1. seems rather disconcerting: why would “God stand in the assembly of El (a Canaanite “god”) and why, “in the midst of the gods” would God “render judgment”? And b3. seems rather dubious, considering the words of Jesus, who does not speak of the “gods” as “angelic/heavenly beings”, but simply as “those to whom the word of God came”. As for the “gods” as human judges or rulers, this interpretation only became relatively popular in Judaism because Psalm 82 was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men.
On the other hand, with an exam based on patristic sources and other Second Temple and Rabbinic Jewish texts, Carl Mosser argues that those referred to by Jesus at 10:34-36 (Ps 82:6a) as “gods” (and, in Ps 82:6b, as “sons of the Most High”) are humans in general, in an interpretation that encompasses the whole history of salvation.
Thanks, Sean. Nice blog post – I agree that “making yourself a god” better fits the argument. Also, basic point, the Greek has “theon” (with no article, no “the”) not “ton theon” (God, literally, the god), and the former is normally translated “a god,” although it is consistent with “God.”
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/10-33.htm
Servetus,
Thanks for your interesting comments. The author introduces the issue as being Jesus’s messiahship: “So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
I agree with part I of your analysis – it fits v. 30-33. About your II and III, honestly, I think your somewhat reading later concerns into the conversation, points that would be made by those committed to Nicene orthodoxy in the 4th c. and later. Your II.2 and II.4 are in this gospel, and in any 1st c. Jewish context, assumed all around, and are not at issue. In other words, Jesus doesn’t need to make those points, as he and his hearers would’ve assumed them.
About your section III,
“1. The claim to being a “god” is authorized for people who represent God (see Ps 82).
2. The claim to be “Son of God” is lesser than the claim to be a “god”.
3. If the greater claim is permissible then necessarily the lesser claim must be permissible as well.
4. Therefore the claim to be a “Son of God” must be permissible for a human and the anticipated rebuttal is false.”
Jesus asserts 1, and I agree that 2 and 3 are assumed by both sides here. Yes, 4, “Son of God” is permissible, and more to the point, it is not, as they’ve charged, blasphemy.
Section IV I think captures v. 37-8.
One thing that confuses many of us is that we’ve now had many centuries of people claiming it is obvious that Jesus could only do and say what he did because he had a divine nature (or is God himself, or is “fully divine”). So you’re thinking that Jesus is taking that seriously and arguing against it. But I think he’s not! That he’s “making himself God” or “a god” is for this author just another ridiculous blunder of the unbelieving Jews; they foolishly jump at his statement that he as his Father “are one,” taking it literally (being the same being) and not figuratively (working together, *as if* we were the same being), when plainly in the context, the latter is his meaning.
All picky points, yes. Obviously, I think that you’re really getting the main points of the passage. Thanks again for the comments.
” I believe there is no evidence, in John’s Gospel, that Jesus really had “plainly” told the Jews that he was the Messiah”
Well, there’s plain as in explicit statement (“I am the Messiah”) – which he won’t want to do, lest his words be quoted back to him in trial, and there’s plain as in obvious, that is, something for which ample evidence has been given. In this gospel, “the Jews” who reject Jesus’s Messiahship are clearly portrayed as culpable because they persist in the face of Jesus’s repeated miraculous works. “even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know… that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” In other words, you don’t have to take my word for it – believe because how else could I do these miracles, unless God was with me?
” Psalm 82 is not directed to human rulers but to heavenly beings? If this were the case in Psalm 82 it would change the game.”
Hi Aaron,
No – what do you think would follow if Ps 82 was originally meant in regard to non-human beings? Why would that be a “game-changer”?
@ Sean
Once in a while we seem to agree: “there was no law against *being* God’s Son (=Messiah)”, so the “Jews’ charge at John 19:7” is just an excuse, nay, a fake. The real reason why “the Jews” decided to get rid of Jesus (under the pretence of a trial, which was in fact a monkey trial) is spelled out by Caiaphas (John 11:50; cp. John 18:14).
“Is it correct to say that the Jews believed that only God could announce His Messiah – so anyone claiming to be Messiah would be considered to be blasphemous?”
That’s a very good question, John. J.C. O’Neill offers a compelling argument for just such an understanding in his book “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?” The book was published by Brill Academic, so it’s quite expensive, but you can probably obtain a copy via inter-library loan as I did years ago.
The argument takes the Jews charge at John 19:7 seriously, where it says:
“We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”
Since there was no law against *being* God’s Son (=Messiah), the illegality would have to have involved the fact that Jesus “made himself out to be” God’s Son. At least that is likely the *excuse* they used to secure Jesus’ death. Their real motivations were revealed by Jesus time and again, and by John, where he says:
“If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:48)
P.S. If you have any doubts left, simply consider the logic. If it was true that “anyone claiming to be Messiah would be considered to be blasphemous”, then this verse …
The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” (John 10:24)
… would imply that the Jewish leaders (“the Jews”) were demanding Jesus to charge himself with capital offence. Likely? Mm …
@ John
“Is it correct to say that the Jews believed that only God could announce His Messiah – so anyone claiming to be Messiah would be considered to be blasphemous?”
There is a whole string of “Jewish Messiah claimants” (see wiki entry), before Jesus, in the first century CE and after, even up to the 20th century. AFAIK, none of them was ever accused of blasphemy. At most they were considered liars, or deluded.
Mario
Is it correct to say that the Jews believed that only God could announce His Messiah – so anyone claiming to be Messiah would be considered to be blasphemous?
God Bless
John
@ Talitha
“On a casual reading, it seems there are a variety of reasons to be accused of blasphemy, not necessarily because one says one is YHWH. ”
Essentially, blasphemy, in the Judaism at the time of Jesus, involved abusing God’s name even if the name was not uttered, but merely referred to.
Jesus claims that he was “God’s son” and/or “God’s anointed” were NOT blasphemies, unless a hostile judge chose to consider them such (e.g. Matt 9:3; 26:65; John 10:33).
“On another note, has anyone done a systematic study on blasphemy in the N. T., second temple period? On a casual reading, it seems there are a variety of reasons to be accused of blasphemy, not necessarily because one says one is YHWH.”
Yes, Mohr Siebeck published a study by Darrell Bock entitled, “Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus”, which was later re-published by Baker Academic under the title, “Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism”. Oddly, the reprint is now out of print while the original edition by Mohr Siebeck appears to be available:
http://www.amazon.com/Blasphemy-Exaltation-Judaism-against-Biblical/dp/0801022363/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1416182961&sr=8-2&keywords=blasphemy+and+exaltation%2C+bock
http://www.amazon.com/Blasphemy-Exaltation-Judaism-Examination-Philological-Historical/dp/3161470524/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416183168&sr=8-1&keywords=blasphemy+and+exaltation%2C+bock
Bock’s study confirms your understanding that “blasphemy” was a broader concept than simply abuse of the divine name.
~Sean
The way I read it, Jesus is arguing that the title the Son of God and his distinct calling (as opposed to a corporate calling of the Isrealite leaders/ rulers as sons of God and gods) is actually SUPERIOR to theirs. Therefore, he is neither overstepping in his earlier judgement of the Pharissess via the sheep/gate parable nor is it inappropriate for Him to make bold statements that functionally (and eventually ontologically at resurrection) put him in equality with YHWH ( if that’s what he means) or more probably in functional equality as a god, ie. divinely appointed judge who is promised immortality and incorruptability.
On another note, has anyone done a systematic study on blasphemy in the N. T., second temple period? On a casual reading, it seems there are a variety of reasons to be accused of blasphemy, not necessarily because one says one is YHWH. I don’t think Jesus is saying this, nor are his accusers saying this, but many readers make this leap due to the word blaspheme which they assume is only when one defames YHWH.
A correction: It probably may be f1(x) = God or f2(x) = 1 when the first f and the second f1 and f2 are different functions describing Christ. There is no contradiction here (even if we assume God != 1, even despite “God is one” in some Bible verse).
“You… are making yourself God” means that they repeated the words of Jesus telling: “I am a mathematical functions which applied to itself is God” that is f(f) = God, for f being Christ.
For other (as a mathematician would say) “cryptomorphical” properties and definitions of Christ see my online article:
http://endofgospel.org/docs/god-as-civilization.html
In short: Christ is a mathematical function, he is “truth” (the function which returns 0 or 1 for every argument indicating whether it is false or true).
@Servetus:
“* I forgot to keep bracketing things halfway through. I’m getting sleepy. Oh well, I’m sure you will see my point and/or be sick of reading my posts by now.”
I enjoyed your comments, and, if Dale is like me, there’s not a chance that he’s sick of your posts!
I have an unrelated question for you. Is there any chance that you’ll eventually make your book “The Restitution of Jesus Christ” available as either an ebook or a PDF? I purchased it in the binder form, and never finished it because reading it in that form was just too cumbersome.
*Excellent* argument, Dale! I know we’ve gone over this before, but in addition to the compelling argument you’ve made, I’d like to add that it makes better sense of the dialogue to accept that the Jews charged Jesus with making himself “a god”. This would be in perfect harmony with your argument, and would be a more natural reading of that part of the account.
See: http://kazesland.blogspot.com/2012/06/charge-against-jesus-at-john-1031.html#comment-form
Servetus,
thank you for your kindness. I presume that, once you have clarified that the “spiritual claims” are contained in the verses in question (John 10:24-39), besides v. 28, you may also want to include v. 30 (“The Father and I are one”) and v. 38 (“I am in the Father and the Father is in me”) that contain the very claims by Jesus that the Jews consider blasphemous, and cause them to attempt to seize him and stone him.
Mario,
I could’ve been clear but I assumed it would be plain from the verses in question. No problem, I will clarify for you. Jesus’ claims which provoke accusations of deification are things the crowd can’t see (e.g. vs 28 “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand.”). Whereas he also makes claims about works he does which they have seen (e.g. vs 32 “I have shown you many good works”; vs 38 “believe the works”). So Claims X, Y, and Z refer to the former claims which are higher-order divine functions which the crowd has no way of verifying. And Works A, B, and C refer (presumably) to miracles he’s shown them like healing the sick and casting out demons.
@ Servetus
“… it’s important to keep in mind that Claims X, Y, and Z (spiritual claims) are not Works A, B, and C (things they’ve seen him do).”
I suppose that, according to sense and to the text of the GoJ, “Works A, B, and C” stands for miracles. Can you please unpack more plainly what you mean by “Claims X, Y, and Z (spiritual claims)”.
@ Aaron
“I view Caiaphas’ question [Matt 26:63] as really an insincere kind of bait to get Jesus to publicly say that he was the Messiah while on trial so that he could condemn him on the spot. I don’t think he was uncertain as to whether Jesus had ever claimed this before His trial.”
I don’t agree. Both Matt 26:63 and John 10:24 (“How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly”) are essentially the same question. Jesus had never (until his trial, that is) “plainly” (or publicly) affirmed (or acknowledged) that he was the Messiah. He had only affirmed/ acknowledged it within the circle of his strict Apostles, disciples and faithful. I believe that Bart D. Ehrman has convincingly argued (The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, 2006, p. 153 ff.) that Judas did not so much betray the person of Jesus, as Jesus’ Messianic secret. Besides, to be a messianic claimant was not considered, per se, a guilt, as proved by the many claimants, including Simon bar Kokhba, the leader of the revolt against the Romans in 132-135 AD and himself a claimant to Messiahship, and recognized by several of the religious Jewish establishment of his time, first and foremost the famous contemporary Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph.
* I forgot to keep bracketing things halfway through. I’m getting sleepy. Oh well, I’m sure you will see my point and/or be sick of reading my posts by now.
Dale, I’m trying to be as precise as possible here so I rephrased my earlier post as a series of arguments. I hope it’s helpful. I’ve also bracketed what I think are implied in the text but unstated.
I. The crowd makes the following argument against Jesus:
1. You made claims X, Y, and Z.
2. Only a deity could do X, Y, and Z.
3. You’re a human and humans aren’t deities.
4. Therefore you’re deifying yourself.
II. Part of Jesus’ response is implicitly the following argument:
1. I am the Son of God.
[2. The Son of God just means the Messiah.]
[3. The Messiah is authorized to do X, Y, and Z.]
[4. The Messiah is a man and not a god.]
[5. Therefore, I.2 is false. ] (From 3-4, it’s false even if they reject the his Premise 1)
III. The other part of Jesus’ response is an anticipation of an rebuttal to II.2 which would say that the phrase “son of God” itself implies deification. Against that Jesus argues:
1. The claim to being a “god” is authorized for people who represent God (see Ps 82).
2. The claim to be “Son of God” is lesser than the claim to be a “god”.
3. If the greater claim is permissible then necessarily the lesser claim must be permissible as well.
4. Therefore the claim to be a “Son of God” must be permissible for a human and the anticipated rebuttal is false.
IV. Jesus then anticipates another argument of theirs which, while granting III, says that he is not the right human to be making that claim since he’s not the Messiah. And so his final anticipatory argument:
1. I am a human being who does works A, B, and C.
2. A, B, and C could only be done by a human being who was an agent of God.
3. Therefore I am indeed an agent of God and my claims are true.
4. Therefore I am the Messiah like I said from the get go.
Closing comment: one might want to conflate these arguments but it’s important to keep in mind that Claims X, Y, and Z (spiritual claims) are not Works A, B, and C (things they’ve seen him do).
Dale,
It seems to me that the crucial point here is actually point 6, though not exactly as you’ve phrased it. The crowd has taken his claims about Messianic prerogatives as being tantamount to deification. So it’s not their failing to recognize him as the Messiah that the issue depends on but rather their disagreement on what is permissible for any human (Messiah or otherwise) to claim. They haven’t charged him with making himself out to be the Messiah falsely (e.g. “the only man who could say those things is the Messiah and you’re not him!”) but rather with deifying himself (e.g. “in order for those things you said about yourself to be true you’d have to be a god, however you’re not a god since you’re a human being!”). In other words, it would be possible for them to accept him as a Messianic while still rejecting the appropriateness of what he said.
Now I will grant that had Jesus been accepted by them as the Messiah that they would have probably seen things in a new light. I’m sure if they weren’t so hostile to him they could’ve conceived of the Messiah having some kind of functional parity with God since he’s like the instrument of God. Whatever God is doing with his hammer must necessarily be being done by the hammer as well, so to speak. But your post is about the logic of the argument so I think it’s important to actually recognize that there’s also a disagreement about what human beings can claim period.
Maybe I’m just nitpicking here. I think we are pretty much in total agreement except on your phrase “In sum, the whole issue hinges on 4”. But as to the overall flow of the discussion we’re on the same page. I’ve always summarized it like this: 1. They misconstrue these claims about his actions as being deification 2. Jesus corrects them by pointing out that he’s in fact made a lesser claim viz. being the Son of God (and so not a god in his own right) and 3. There can’t be any impropriety in his actual claim given other authorized claims in the bible of a greater (semantic) degree (i.e. being called “gods” > being called “son of God”).
@Mario
I don’t want to jump in and cut Dale off but wanted to give some thoughts.
If by “plainly” we mean that Jesus tells the Jews, “I am the Messiah” then I suppose I must agree. But Jesus was calling Himself “the Son” as well as “the Son of God” and saying that He would raise people up on the Last Day. He also told the Jews that “Moses wrote of Me.” To me this seems rather plain: Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God and the fulfillment of the OT; i.e. The Messiah. It’s hard to think that the Jews didn’t see this as “plain.”
I view Caiaphas’ question as really an insincere kind of bait to get Jesus to publicly say that he was the Messiah while on trial so that he could condemn him on the spot. I don’t think he was uncertain as to whether Jesus had ever claimed this before His trial.
@ Dale
I believe your analysis of Jesus’ argument is flawless.
I rather see a problem with the text of John 10: I believe there is no evidence, in John’s Gospel, that Jesus really had “plainly” told the Jews that he was the Messiah. Also, this would be very difficult to reconcile with Caiaphas’ question in Matthew’s Gospel (“I charge you under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” – Matt 26:63), and with Jesus’ reply to Caiaphas (Matt 26:64).
Hi Dale,
Interesting read. John is considered by most to be the Gospel which most clearly states that Jesus is divine so this makes everything even more interesting! Have you heard of the view that Psalm 82 is not directed to human rulers but to heavenly beings? If this were the case in Psalm 82 it would change the game.
Hi Charles,
Thanks for the comment.
Well, I’d trust the tradition over the notoriously revisionary, theologically left-wing Jesus Seminar. If John wrote it in the 90s, as many think, then I don’t see why the words attributed to Jesus can’t be accurate enough (by ancient standards; we have to remember that quotation marks literally did not exist back then).
But if you’re skeptical about the traditional view of the Gospel of John, then let the point of this post be about the author’s cleverness, rather than Jesus’s. Skeptics too should be interested in getting this book right, that is, understanding what it does and doesn’t say about Jesus and God.
The Jesus Seminar did not feel that any of chapter 10 contained authentic words of Jesus. Since John was so late, c. 90-100 CE, it is difficult to determine what was said by Jesus.
Comments are closed.