|
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
|
This passage has
been the object of much discussion, commentary, and debate among those
with differing views about the Deity of Christ. Some claim that
Jesus denies that He is God, taking for Himself the lesser title "Son
of God." Others argue that Jesus is asserting that He is
God, co-equal with His Father. Still others say that Jesus is
neither affirming nor denying His Deity, but rather is answering the
specific charge of blasphemy (v. 33). Which of these views, if any,
is correct?
To answer this question, there are several rather complex issues to
unravel.
First, we must look to the context. What has Jesus just asserted
that roused the Jews to such anger that they would accuse Him of
blasphemy? What does He say following this passage? Next, we
must determine the meaning of the Old Testament verse Jesus is quoting in
His defense. Then we must understand why Jesus quotes this
passage - what is it about this passage that counters the accusation of
blasphemy? Finally, we must put these pieces together to reconstruct
Jesus' argument and place it in context with what precedes and follows.
Context
This
pericope begins with the Jews gathering around Jesus in the Temple
portico, asking Him to tell them in plain terms if He is the Messiah (v.
24). Jesus answers by giving two reasons they should already know
the answer to this question: His words and His works (v. 25).
Jesus says that the reason they do not know He is the Messiah is not
because He has failed to speak clearly or to manifest who He truly is
through His miracles, but because they lack faith (vv. 25 - 26).
Jesus says that His sheep know Him and hear His voice, but the Jews are
not His sheep (vv. 26 - 27). To this point, while Jesus may well
have provoked his listeners to anger, there is nothing in what He has said
that warrants the charge of blasphemy. But then Jesus says, "I
give eternal life to them, and they will never perish" (v. 28).
Here Jesus claims for Himself the Divine prerogative of granting life to
His sheep. The Jews knew that only YHWH gives life (Deut. 32:39),
let alone eternal life. Then Jesus equates His power to keep His
sheep firmly in hand with His Father's power to do the same thing (vv. 28
- 29). The Jews knew that the Father was "greater than
all," but when Jesus said that He had the same power to preserve His
sheep as His Father has, this was a clear claim to equality with
God. Jesus further drives the point home with His assertion that He
and His Father are "one" (v. 30).
It is at this point - and with good reason, from their perspective as
unbelievers - that the Jews prepare to stone Jesus. Jesus
immediately challenges them by returning to one of the two reasons He has
given for making clear that He is the Messiah - His works: "I
showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you
stoning me?" (v. 32). This is not an evasive response - and it
does not follow that Jesus' subsequent response will be evasive,
either. The Jews reply that they are not stoning Him for His works,
but for claiming to be God, which is blasphemy, according to their Law (v.
33).
Some have argued that the Jews are accusing Jesus of
nothing more than being "a god," on the basis that the Greek
word theos ("God") lacks the article in this verse and on
Jesus' use of Psalm 82 (see below). While many nouns without the
article in Greek are indefinite, many others are not. Context, once
again, is our sure guide for determining meaning. If the Jews
believed that "a god" could grant eternal life or was equal to
the Father in the power to preserve the Sheep, there might be some warrant
for theos in this verse being rendered "a god." But
this is manifestly not the case; while some might be called
"gods," in the OT, none were ever said to have Divine powers
such as these. Further, the Law against blasphemy did not pertain to
those claiming to be 'a god,' but was specific to defaming the name of
YHWH (Lev. 24:16), which any man did who claimed to be God or equated his
power with YHWH's power. The Jews would be risking their lives if
they were to stone Jesus on the grounds of the Temple for anything
other than a Law clearly defined in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Immediately after quoting Psalm 82 in His defense, Jesus again returns
to the testimony of His works (vv. 37 - 38). Jesus then repeats what
He has previously asserted in slightly different words: "The Father
is in Me and I in the Father." This further appeal to an
intimate relationship in which the Father's intimacy with the Son is no
less than the Son's intimacy with the Father incites the Jews beyond
talking and Jesus must elude them and flee. It may be said here that
if Jesus' appeal to Psalm 82 is meant as nothing more than an answer to
the charge of blasphemy, as some commentators allege, He has completely
undermined His defense with new claims of unity and equality with His
Father. It would seem untenable, given that He knew the hearts of his
accusers, that Jesus would provoke the Jews with such a statement, unless
it was a logical extension of what He has just said.
The
Meaning of Psalm 82
The
words quoted by Jesus in John 10:34 are from Psalm 82:6. The
pertinent section reads as follows:
I
said, "You are gods,
And
all of you are sons of the Most High.
Nevertheless
you will die like men
And
fall like any one of the princes."
There
has been much debate about whom "you" refers. There are
three common suggestions: 1) Angelic beings; 2) the Children of
Israel at Sinai when they received the Law; 3) human judges or rulers who
have judged unjustly. Many who argue that ancient Israel practiced a
form of polytheism or henotheism
argue for option #1. They see this verse preserving an old tradition
in which the pagan gods are judged by YHWH. The problem with this
view is that Jesus' appeal to this verse presupposes that it refers to
human beings; if it refers to angels, the Jews could rightly ignore Jesus'
defense, for He is not an angel claiming the title "God," but a
man (v. 33). Jerome Neyrey makes an interesting case for option #2 ("I
Said Ye Are Gods:" Psalm 82:6 and John 10). Neyrey argues
that extra-Biblical Jewish literature from shortly after the time of
Christ indicates that the Jews thought that the Children of Israel had, in
a sense, become "gods" when they received the Law.
However, they almost immediately fell into idolatry and lost their divine
status. The chief problem I see with Neyrey's otherwise provocative
article is that there is simply no example of the Israelites being called
"gods" in the Bible, and Jesus' argument is based specifically
on Scripture which "cannot be broken." In my view, Jesus'
reference is unlikely, on the one hand, to rely on Psalm 82, and on the
other, on a Midrashic interpretation of it. Option #3 is, on the
whole, the most likely. In the immediate context, the "sons of
the Most High" are said to judge, albeit unjustly (v.
2). There is probable Biblical precedent for calling human judges
"gods" (Exodus 22:8, 9; Judges 5:8,9). The judges were
"gods" in the sense that the "word of God came" to
them as a Divine commission to perform a duty on earth that ultimately
belongs only to God. The judges, then, parallel Jesus - though to a
lesser degree; for He received
a Divine commission par excellence and every work He does is that
of the Father (cf., 5:19ff).
Jesus'
Use of Psalm 821
There
are two important points to raise when considering why Jesus quotes this
particular Psalm in His defense: 1) The Jews base their charge
of blasphemy on what they see as Jesus' self-proclamation of Deity:
"You being a man make yourself out to be God" (v. 33);
and 2) Jesus' use of Psalm 82 must be consistent with the overall answer
that Jesus is giving the Jews to their challenge to say
"plainly" whether He is the Messiah (v. 24).
Regarding the
first point, we may say that Jesus' use of Psalm 82 refutes the foundation
of the Jews' accusation. The judges in Psalm 82 do not "make
themselves" gods, but rather the divine title is given to them by
God, on the basis of their commission ("to whom the Word of God
came."). In affirming that He is the Messiah, Jesus uses this
general principle to declare that His divine title ("the Son of
God") was not of His own proclamation, but comes as the result of the
Father's commission ("sanctified and sent into the World;" cf.,
Mark 1:11; Luke3:22). Regarding the second point, Jesus cannot be simply
using an ad hominem argument to evade the charge of blasphemy2
because both before and after verses 34 - 36, He is claiming far more than
merely being "a god" in the sense the Judges were
"gods." The judges in Psalm 82 are not said to grant
eternal life to their followers, nor to be equal to the Father in their
power to hold them fast. If Jesus were making an ad hominem
argument, He would be essentially saying, "You don't know your own
Scriptures - I am simply calling myself 'the Son of God' in the same way
God calls the judges in Psalm 82 'gods' and 'sons of the Most
High.'" The Jews could simply respond, "We know what God
called the judges - but you are not claiming to be 'a god' like the judges
- you are claiming to be far more than they! You have claimed a
blasphemous unity with God unlike any exampled in our Scriptures, let
alone Psalm 82!" The same can be said of Jesus' title,
"Son of God." If Jesus meant to say that His divine title
is less than the judges' title (that is, that 'Son of God' is a less
exalted title than "a god"), the Jews could rightly reject His
answer as equivocation. Jesus is defending His statements prior to
verse 34. Thus, "Son of God" must be viewed as meaning the
same thing as One who grants eternal life, who holds His sheep in a grip
as powerful as His Father's, and who is One with the Father. Indeed,
Jesus knew well what the Jews would make of this title - the Jews had
accused Him before of using this title to make Himself "equal"
with God (5:18). Jesus' subsequent
statement, which again repeats His claim to profound unity with His
Father, and which the Jews understand as confirming their accusation,
makes clear that Jesus is using Psalm 82 to establish the Biblical basis
for the exclusive claims He is making. There is, of course, no
"Biblical basis" in the OT for the specific divine title,
"The Son of God," nor for the specific claims Jesus is making
for Himself. The judges of Psalm 82 are called "gods" on
far less merit than Jesus. Jesus is using Psalm 82 to establish a general
principle - namely, that it is not blasphemous for one with a divine
commission to be called by a divine title. Having established this
point beyond dispute ("the Scripture cannot be broken"), He then
establishes the basis for His unique divine title in His correspondingly
higher divine commission ("whom the Father sanctified and sent into
the world"). Jesus' title and claims are, therefore, included
within the general principle, and He cannot legitimately be accused of
blasphemy. The Argument in Context The
Jews have asked Jesus to plainly say if He is the Messiah. We may
summarize His response as follows:"You
should already know the answer to this question: My words and my works
tell you plainly who I am. The reason you don't know who I am is
because you do not believe. My sheep hear my voice and know me, but
you are not my sheep. I grant eternal life to my sheep, and no one
can snatch from my hand those that the Father gives me. My Father is
greater than all and no one can snatch my sheep from my Father's hand - my
Father and I are One!"At this point, the
Jews understand that Jesus is making exclusive claims of equality with
God, which (unless true!) are blasphemous. Jesus asks which works He
has done that warrant the charge of blasphemy. The Jews reply that
they are not stoning Him for His works, but for the words He has just
spoken. Jesus replies as follows: "The
Scripture says that God calls the judges in Psalm 82 'gods' on the basis
of their divine commission. Thus, since the Scripture cannot be
wrong, it is not blasphemy for one with a divine commission to have a
divine title. I do not have a commission like the judges; I have an
exclusive commission from my Father, for He set me apart and sent me into
the world - to do the works you have seen, to say the words I have said,
to grant eternal life to my sheep, to hold them fast in the same way my
Father does, for He and I are One. Therefore, I have not committed
blasphemy! But even if you persist in denying my words, you should
believe on the basis of my works, for they prove that the Father is in Me
in the same way I am in Him: we are One!" The
Jews, of course, do not believe Jesus - not because they misunderstand Him
(such would suggest that Jesus was ineffective in communicating His
identity, or was being consciously deceptive) - but because they lack
faith. They are not Jesus' sheep, as He has said. Thus, their
rejection of Him lies in denial and self-deception, the root cause of all
who reject God and His Christ (Romans 1:18 - 19).
|
|
O
t
h
e
r
V
i
e
w
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
|
Jehovah's Witnesses
objection:
The New World Translation renders John 10:33 as follows:
The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a
fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make
yourself a god.
Greg Stafford defends the translation "a god" in
this verse as follows:
The fact that Jesus answered the Jews by quoting Psalm
82:6 (where beings other than Jehovah are called "gods") shows
that they had accused him of claiming to be "a god," not
"God" (Stafford, p.
116).
Mr. Stafford suggests that if the Jews had accused Jesus of being God, then his response in
citing a text where others are not called God would not refute their point and would be essentially meaningless in
reply.
response:
Mr. Stafford's argument seeks to prove that the Jews accused Jesus of making Himself
'a god' solely on the basis of His reply to them. While Jesus' reply is essential in understanding this passage, so is the surrounding context.
First, it is important to note that the Jews do not make their accusation on the basis of Jesus calling Himself "God's Son." Instead, it arises from the following claims:
1. He has implicitly agreed that He is the Messiah (v. 25).
2. He has said that the Jews are not "His sheep," to whom He will give eternal life (v. 28).
3. He has said that no one can snatch His sheep from His hand (v. 28).
4. He has said that His Father is "greater than all" (v. 29).
5. He has said that no one can snatch His sheep from His Father's hand (v. 29).
6. He has said that He and His Father are one (v. 30).
Now, I could agree that the Jews might have thought Jesus was making Himself "a god" if somewhere in their Scriptures there was 'a god' who had equated Himself to YHWH in this manner. But nowhere do we find 'a god' saying anything like these claims. Jesus says that He is the one who grants eternal life; He places Himself on equal footing with His Father - who is "greater than all" - in claiming that He will keep His sheep firmly in hand; He has claimed to be "one" with His Father. This last cannot be a mere claim to "unity of purpose," for even the Jews would say that they are "one with God" in this regard.
For the Jews, Jesus' statements were claims to Divine prerogatives rightly belonging only to YHWH. Furthermore, the specific accusation is blasphemy; I am unaware of any Biblical
definition of blasphemy that deals with claims about being 'a god.' Unless
Mr. Stafford can provide proof otherwise, this fact supports the traditional interpretation - that is, that the Jews accused Jesus of making Himself God.
This interpretation is further supported by Jesus' subsequent remarks, in which He reaffirms his Unity with His Father in slightly different terms (v. 38). Had the accusation been merely that He was making Himself "a god," and if Jesus knew the hearts of His listeners, why does Jesus further incite them with another provocative statement He knew they would misunderstand? Is He trying to mislead them? On the other hand, if Jesus is answering their challenge by asserting His Deity, his further statement in vv. 37ff simply amplifies the point; knowing their hearts, He pushes the point home - "I'm answering your question directly: I am the Messiah, and all that that title entails - but you do not believe because you are not of my sheep."
objection:
In personal correspondence, Mr. Stafford has argued as follows:
Hence, Jesus replies [to] the accusation, telling them that if those
against whom the word of God came can be called gods, then surely the one
sent by God can be called a god (per the Jews' argument), or in parallel thought, God's
Son:
Sons of the Most High (Psalm 82) = gods (plural)
God's Son (John 10) = a god (singular)
response:
While I agree with the first statement, I do not believe the second is logically sound.
I would rephrase his equations as follows:
sons of the Most High (Psalm 82) = gods (plural)
a son of the Most High/God = a god (singular)
It does not follow that "a son = the Son." Mr. Stafford's argument is, in fact, a logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent."3
The link Mr. Stafford forges between the 'sons of the most High' in Ps 82 and "God's Son" in
John 10 is not quite the one Jesus does. If Mr. Stafford were right, the Jews could simply answer:
"Hey, no fair, Jesus! We know that in some contexts, beings other than God can be called 'gods," but you weren't claiming to be 'a god' or "a son of God" in that sense; you were claiming the prerogatives of the true God just now! Don't just toss an
ad hominem argument our way - you are committing blasphemy, and Ps 82 doesn't get you off the hook!"
The title "God's Son" must mean essentially the same thing as "I and the Father are one" and "no one can snatch them out of my hands / no one can snatch them out of my Father's hands." In other words, it must be understood as making the same claim to Deity as the statements to which the Jews are reacting.
Mr. Stafford argues on the basis that Jesus' argument must be a meaningful response to the Jews. I agree. Thus, Jesus cannot be claiming something less than His previous statements, or less than those that follow - all of which caused the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy. Indeed, in
John 5:19ff, we find the Jews reacting in much the same way to Jesus' statement that God is "his own Father."
With this in mind, we may rephrase Mr. Stafford's
equations as follows:
sons of the Most High (Psalm 82) = gods (plural)
God's Son (John 10) = equal with God (John 5:19) (singular)
Jesus cannot turn to an OT passage in which one who is
commissioned by God is called the Son of God. But He can
point to a passage that establishes the general principle that it is not
blasphemous for one with a divine commission to be called by a divine
title ("sons of the Most High;" "gods"). Jesus'
own title, the Son of God, is justified by His commission par
excellence, because it is included within the Scriptural principle He
has just established.
Notes
1 For a detailed analysis of Jesus'
use of Psalm 82, see W. Gary Phillips, "John 10:34-26: An Apologetic Study," Bibliotheca Sacra, 584
(1989). I am indebted to Phillips' study throughout this next
section.
2. Robertson is typical of those
advocating this view: "As Jews (and rabbis) they
are shut out from charging Jesus with blasphemy because of this usage in
the O.T. It is a complete ad hominem argument" (RWP).
D.A. Carson argues: "Although it is ad hominem - i.e., it does
not require Jesus to subscribe to the same literal exegesis as his
opponents - it is not for that reason silly" (Carson,
p. 399). In my view, if Jesus uses an exegesis contrary to the
Jews, He has not effectively answered them. It would allow the Jews
to reject His answer on the grounds of equivocation - that is, that He now
claiming that "the Son of God" means no more than "sons of
the Most High" in Psalm 82. I think it better to understand
Jesus as establishing a general principle that the Jews would have to
agree with, on the basis of their acknowledgement that "the Scripture
cannot be broken."
3. This fallacy may be illustrated
as follows: If I am in Toledo, I am in Ohio. I am in Ohio, therefore I am in Toledo (not necessarily; I might be in Cleveland).
Similarly, if one is the Son of God, one is a son of God.
But that does not mean that "a son of God" is the same thing as
"the Son of God." The "gods" in Ps 82 are "sons of the Most High," but that does not make them
the Son of God.
|