He was being attacked for saying He said He was God, of course the conversation was about "heavenly beings" Jesus then used scripture to show that even the accusers (and of course Himself ) WERE "elohyim"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What are your thoughts on Jesus quoting "Ye are gods" ?
- Thread starter TomLaPalm
- Start date
- Status
He was being attacked for saying He said He was God, of course the conversation was about "heavenly beings" Jesus then used scripture to show that even the accusers (and of course Himself ) WERE "elohyim"
I think you need to slow down and study both passages in more detail, looking not only at what you want the passages to mean but at what at what they would have meant to the audience contemporary to its writing.
I understand the reasons for interpreting the passages as referring to heavenly beings. But I also understand the reasoning for them being judges (the KJV interpretation of Elohim in three other passages) and I understand the interpretation of of this being Israel along with the associated view that it is the leadership of Israel.
So I have a legitimacy in holding my view. I understand the conclusions we are discussing and the legitimacy of each. Your replies indicate you only understand your own opinion as each response has failed to address the basis for other interpretation.
Before you continue I strongly encourage you to study the passages. It is impossible to debate meaning if you fail to grasp the other positions.
Sent from my TARDIS
I think that this might help you understand better the reasons for other interpretations. While you may still lean on your view, at least you will understand the positions are rejecting (and thereby not be dismissing them on false premises).
Pretend that you are in that audience. You are one of those Jews challenging Jesus.
Who do you believe is God’s firstborn son?
Who do you believe are the ones to whom the word of God came?
You, of course, would answer that these both referred to Israel.
Consider Moshe ben Maimon’s conclusion “I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries…” (Guide for the Preplexed).
As one of those Jews, who was that “Elohim” that king Saul witnessed? Who was “Elohim” to Pharaoh? Who was “Elohim” to Aaron? Who were the “Elohim” in Exodus 21:7 and 22:8?
All of those are men (Samul, Moses, judges…etc.). But you also know that Elohim can refer to the messianic king (Psalm 45:6).
Start there…..and I recommend reading Exodus again as well.
Consider then that what feast is going on in John 10.
Then let’s pickup this discussion on a better informed ground. You may still hold to your interpretation, but I think that perhaps you won't be misunderstanding and misrepresenting those other views.
Is it normal practice for a moderator to insult a poster because the moderators' views are questioned?
The Jews were not upset at Jesus for claiming to be God's firstborn son, nor from receiving scripture. They were going to kill him for Jhn 10:30 "I and my Father are one"., Plainly because:
Jhn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. John 5 and 7 also list their desire to kill him.
I am aware how elohyim is used but "children of the most high" is unique in scripture , In the Psalms Jesus quoted , elohyim are "children of the most high, not false gods not GOD himself from v1 not judges not kings,
John 10 and Psalms has NOTHING to do with Exodus . Period, your mistake or some misguided commentator you copied.
It does relate to this same group of Jewish rulers
Jhn 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
How can Jesus speak of them as of "your father the devil" and "elohyim" "children of the most high" unless they are the same?
First, I mean no insult at all and if you taking my words as insult was due to unclear wording on my part, then you have my apology. What I am saying is that your comments misrepresent my interpretation. You have failed to question my view because you have failed to express my view. Either this is intentional or you simply do not understand those other interpretations. Those are the only two possible conclusions.
Second, I did not say that John 10 and Psalm 82 had anything to do with Exodus. I am saying that Exodus has something to do with the interpretation of John 10 and Psalm 82.
And I was not (as your apparent insult suggests) copying some commentator. I did not mention Moshe ben Maimon because he was some Christian commentator. I noted that he took as obvious the Jewish understanding of "Elohim" as having diverse applications to include referencing men (a fact you seem to find offensive, regardless as to its validity).
Third, you started the OP and asked "any comments." If you are not willing to engage the views of others (to include different interpretations) but only want to state your view then you should have refrained from creating this thread. I understand the interpretations that those 'gods' were angels, heavenly beings, judges, Israel, and Israel in terms of her leadership. If you are not willing or able to consider other possible interpretations then don't ask for them.
Sent from my TARDIS
I understand but politely try to show the fallacies in fact or logic. I haven't misrepresented your comments but show if you believe one thing, it leads to another conclusion which you must believe as well.
I also corrected some statement s by showing scripture that must be true and must change the statements interruption.
Exodus has little relation to this posts. There was no inference of Israel as a nation in the dialogue nor the passage referred to. They wanted to kill Him because of "I and my Father are on" and similar statements.
I appreciate the comments, and have considered the interpretations, previously , but I have had to learn to accept scripture, as originally written, even if I do not understand it fully.
What I find objectionable, brother, is your last comment (as it seems to deny anything previously stated). You say that you considered the other interpretations but have had to learn to “accept scripture, as originally written” even if it is beyond your full understanding.
In other words, I could say the same thing. "I have considered your interpretation, but I have to accept Scripture, as originally written". Do you understand the fallacy of your statement?
This is the purpose of every one of those interpretations you have rejected and misrepresented. The “fallacies in fact or logic” that you see are only because you have failed to examine other views within their own context. So let’s once again look at the OP.
John 10:22-42:
1. What is the purpose of this passage (and of the Psalm 82 reference)? Jesus is explaining that he and the Father are one. He is asked to explain plainly if he is the Christ (v. 24) and he replies that he has indeed told them, that his works bear witness about them, but they are not among his sheep and will not believe. But those who are given to him, his sheep, hear his voice. He and the Father are one.
The Jews seek to stone him for blasphemy because he, being a man, makes himself God (v. 33). Jesus answers “Is it not written in your Law,” I said, you are gods?” If he called them gods to whom the word of God came then how do to those Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy as Jesus is the one the Father consecrated and sent into the world (because Jesus said I am the Son of God).
Jesus is arguing from lesser to greater (which was a common rabbinic device….we also see this often with Paul). If there is a sense in which mere man can be called “Elohim” then how much more is it appropriate for the one that God consecrated and sent to hold this description.
2. Let’s look at how the Jesus’ audience would have understood these issues of which we speak. This is why Exodus is important. We can understand how these Jews would have taken many of those terms and descriptions (we don’t have to place the passage in a contemporary setting).
If you were in the audience, who would you consider to be God’s firstborn son? I asked you this for illustration. But the answer is Israel. In fact, Israel is called God’s firstborn son (Ex. 4:21-22).
If you were a Jew listening to Jesus’ words, “those to whom the Law came” would be taken to identify what target? Israel (and always Israel).
The issue of calling Israel (and their leaders) "gods" is arguing for the divinity of Christ, and this is why the Jews wanted to stone him. Jesus' quote of Psalm 82 was not a pause in the discussion, but it was a part of the context of the entire passage.
If you are willing to discuss various interpretations honestly, and interact with not only other interpretations but also the context in which they are presented, then this could be an interesting topic. Your statement excluding the Exodus as non-applicable to the topic (when it's relevance is obvious to the context of other interpretations....i.e., that Psalm 82 is pointing to Israel at the giving of the Law, or that "elohim" is used to speak of judges or leaders in Exodus) seems to indicate that you are not willing.
Your position is contradicted by the scriptures you quote, You are adding (speculation) to the meanings . Exodus nor nation of Israel is not even inferred in the conversation. The intentions are reason are clearly shown in this chapter and 8 , 9 His claim of deity, or being equal to the Father., not the position of first born, (Jesus always spoke of Himself os son of man, not son of God). Nor is there any inference to scripture being here by any means. He was being attacked for a claim of "nter that SCRIPTURE "and cannot be broken " or questioned" says that "ye are gods" applies to the accusers as well as the accused. How could the knowledgeable Jews refute scripture ? How can you? It is a far stretch to conclude otherwise.
Why do you suggest Psalms 82 is about Exodus?
"for whom the Law came" is not in this passage how do you make the connection?
I'm sorry, brother. But perhaps we simply disagree in how passages should be interpreted. I actually offered you four interpretations of the passage in John 10 (one was your own) and tried to explain how each was valid, but that we have to determine which is true (as best we can).
I do not know why you insist that viewing those unjust "gods" "to whom the word of God came" as men would invalidate the conclusion that Jesus is claiming himself as equal to the Father in those verses. Your conclusion is right that this is what Jesus is claiming, but it is not because those "gods" are unjust angels or heavenly beings. I believe that you are missing an element in your interpretation.
I am not saying that Psalm 82 is about the Exodus except it's usage and development of Israel, the use of "gods" and the Jewish understanding of "those to whom the word of God came." What I am saying is that "those to whom the word of God came" are men (Israel, judges, leaders....that's not the point....they are not angels). I am also saying that two of the interpretations I presented have in mind Psalm 82 being in context of the giving of the Law.
The point of the passage (John 10) is not dependent on the identity of those who are called "gods." The KJV actually interprets Elohim as judges a couple of times (in Exodus) so I am saying that the possibility is not foreign to interpretation.
I will try and find a commentator for each of those positions that disagree with yours....maybe they can word it more articulately than I.
That said, please show me one passage that contradicts what I have suggested (keep in mind that your interpretation has "those to whom the word of God came" as being unjust angels).
There are many commentators who do not agree with me. I use Blue letter bible .org,sometimes . There are many there
I have offered three interpretations, and of them I only agree with one (and it to a certain degree). All of them are biblical (that we have discussed) but each have their own interpretations and reasons for their conclusions. All that we can do is honestly look at the passage, determine a view and examine evidences that support each conclusion.
I have found a fairly good summery in one of D.A. Carson's commentaries that I will post so that members can view a few views. One thing that I firmly believe is that if we come up with an understanding that is unique then it is probably wrong. So verification is one use of commentary. Another is to understand other positions so that we can evaluate interpretations.
BTW....thanks for the info on blueletterbible.org. I have never been to that site.
Here you go. Carson seems to have done a good job examining a few views. I'm sure we can add to this and perhaps get a good view of interpretations out there. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John)
“Jesus defends his claims by quoting Psalm 82:6, here drawn exactly from the LXX. The entire verse, and the next (Ps. 82:7), develops a single line of argument: ‘I said, “You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High.” But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” As Jesus uses the text, the general like of his argument is clear. This Scripture proves that the word ‘god’ is legitimately used to refer to others than God himself. If there are others whom God (the author of Scripture) can address as ‘gods’ and ‘sons of the Most High’ (i.e., sons of God), on what biblical basis should anyone object when Jesus says, I am God’s Son? The argument gains extra force when it is remembered that Jesus is the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world.
Although this much is clear, uncertainty abounds as to the identity of those whom God is addressing in Psalm 82.”
1. God is addressing Israel’s judges, who are corrupting justice in the courts of the land. They are called ‘gods’ because to exercise justice is fundamentally a divine prerogative vouchsaved to certain individuals (Dt. 1:17).
Problems with interpreting Psalm 82 in this way is that Jesus characterizes those who are addressed in Psalm 82 as “those to whom the word of God came.” There is good evidence that Jewish leaders understood all of Israel to be the people to whom the word of the Lord came.
2. Richard Jungkuntz offers an embellishment on this first interpretation. He argues the clause “and the Scripture cannot be broken” means that this prophetic Scripture must be fulfilled. Jesus’ citation of the Psalm is now interpreted to mean that he excoriates the judges of Israel for their failure, while he himself fulfills the psalm, claiming to be God in human form and therefore his people’s perfect judge and deliverer.
The problem here is that it rests too much weight on the assumption that λύω (lyō) means “is fulfilled.”
3. God is addressing angelic powers who abused the authority God had given them over the nations. Apart from some rather stunning modifications, the same thought is preserved in a document from Qumran (11Q Melchizedek). John 10 then presupposes, as Hebrews 1-2 argues, that Jesus is superior to all angelic beings. If fallen angelic beings can be addressed as ‘gods’, how much more appropriate is the application of the word to Jesus.
Problems with this line of argument is that John’s Gospel fails to mention angels or Melchizedek. Moreover the setting for the quotation draws a sharp contrast between God and ‘a mere man’ (v. 38), not God and angels.
4. God is addressing Israel at the time of the giving of the law. There is good evidence that many rabbis understood Psalm 82 this way. The curse that fell on the Israelites was then in consequence of the golden calf episode. The word of God preeminently came to Israel at Sinai (as virtually all Jewish leaders believed), but the subsequent rebellion, compounded by the failure to take the land at the first approach, led to the death of that entire generation. This interpretation is strengthened when it is remembered that Israel is also called God’s firstborn son, generating a typology which Jesus has already claimed to have fulfilled.
5. The quotation from Psalm 82:6 carries along the entire Psalm, and verse 8 is understood to be a prophecy fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus Christ. The argument in John 10 is that if being addressed by the pre-existent Word justifies the usage in Psalm 82, where human beings are called gods, then we are amply justified in applying ‘Son of God’ to the man who is the human bearer of the pre-existent Word.
The problem with this view is that the expression ‘the word of God came’ is such a standard biblical phrase for the message of God being declared to someone that it is hard to imagine why a first-century reader would take it to mean something else, unless there were substantial contextual clues.
(if it is not obvious, Carson views #4 as the best choice)
“Jesus defends his claims by quoting Psalm 82:6, here drawn exactly from the LXX. The entire verse, and the next (Ps. 82:7), develops a single line of argument: ‘I said, “You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High.” But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” As Jesus uses the text, the general like of his argument is clear. This Scripture proves that the word ‘god’ is legitimately used to refer to others than God himself. If there are others whom God (the author of Scripture) can address as ‘gods’ and ‘sons of the Most High’ (i.e., sons of God), on what biblical basis should anyone object when Jesus says, I am God’s Son? The argument gains extra force when it is remembered that Jesus is the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world.
Although this much is clear, uncertainty abounds as to the identity of those whom God is addressing in Psalm 82.”
1. God is addressing Israel’s judges, who are corrupting justice in the courts of the land. They are called ‘gods’ because to exercise justice is fundamentally a divine prerogative vouchsaved to certain individuals (Dt. 1:17).
Problems with interpreting Psalm 82 in this way is that Jesus characterizes those who are addressed in Psalm 82 as “those to whom the word of God came.” There is good evidence that Jewish leaders understood all of Israel to be the people to whom the word of the Lord came.
2. Richard Jungkuntz offers an embellishment on this first interpretation. He argues the clause “and the Scripture cannot be broken” means that this prophetic Scripture must be fulfilled. Jesus’ citation of the Psalm is now interpreted to mean that he excoriates the judges of Israel for their failure, while he himself fulfills the psalm, claiming to be God in human form and therefore his people’s perfect judge and deliverer.
The problem here is that it rests too much weight on the assumption that λύω (lyō) means “is fulfilled.”
3. God is addressing angelic powers who abused the authority God had given them over the nations. Apart from some rather stunning modifications, the same thought is preserved in a document from Qumran (11Q Melchizedek). John 10 then presupposes, as Hebrews 1-2 argues, that Jesus is superior to all angelic beings. If fallen angelic beings can be addressed as ‘gods’, how much more appropriate is the application of the word to Jesus.
Problems with this line of argument is that John’s Gospel fails to mention angels or Melchizedek. Moreover the setting for the quotation draws a sharp contrast between God and ‘a mere man’ (v. 38), not God and angels.
4. God is addressing Israel at the time of the giving of the law. There is good evidence that many rabbis understood Psalm 82 this way. The curse that fell on the Israelites was then in consequence of the golden calf episode. The word of God preeminently came to Israel at Sinai (as virtually all Jewish leaders believed), but the subsequent rebellion, compounded by the failure to take the land at the first approach, led to the death of that entire generation. This interpretation is strengthened when it is remembered that Israel is also called God’s firstborn son, generating a typology which Jesus has already claimed to have fulfilled.
5. The quotation from Psalm 82:6 carries along the entire Psalm, and verse 8 is understood to be a prophecy fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus Christ. The argument in John 10 is that if being addressed by the pre-existent Word justifies the usage in Psalm 82, where human beings are called gods, then we are amply justified in applying ‘Son of God’ to the man who is the human bearer of the pre-existent Word.
The problem with this view is that the expression ‘the word of God came’ is such a standard biblical phrase for the message of God being declared to someone that it is hard to imagine why a first-century reader would take it to mean something else, unless there were substantial contextual clues.
(if it is not obvious, Carson views #4 as the best choice)
I am aware of several who have ststed this position, I am sorry to imply I needed another.
The stance referenced in verse 8 is particularly wrong that Psalms 82 is about men because God does not judge men and Jesus does not judge man
Jhn 8:15
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
so there cannot be man in Psalms 82 but elohyim
I think you are taking that a bit out if context. You see, we call on him as Father who does judge. God judges, the Father has judged, and as you pointed out, all judgment has been entrusted to the Son. The issue is context. We don't get to simply pick context.
Sent from my TARDIS
Scripture plainly says the Father does not judge man..... The Son says He does not judge man
Jhn 8:15
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
The Father has not judged man either yet we are condemned.
I agree with you I am condemned already, certainly before I was born .
Man has not been judged, yet we are condemned, To reconcile the two statement we must consider.
Col 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whetherthey be things in earth, or things in heaven.
How are things in heaven reconciled by the blood of the Cross?
Yet Psalm 75:7; Psalm 50:6; Isaiah 33:20; Isaiah 66:12; 2 Timothy 4:8; Hebrews 12:23; James 4:12’ Judges 11:27; Genesis 16:5; Isaiah 2:4; 1 Samuel 24:15; Micah 4:3; James 5:9; Isaiah 3:13; Psalm 50:4; Psalm 82:10; Revelation 20:11-15; Genesis 18:25; Psalm 9:8; Judges 2:11-15; Psalm 96:13; Psalm 94:2: Psalm 82:8; Psalm 58:11; Ezekiel 33:20; 1 Peter 4:5; Revelation 20:12; Hebrews 9:27; Psalm 9:19-20; Isaiah 40:23; Jeremiah 25:17-27; Revelation 6:15-17; Hebrews 10:30; Deuteronomy 32:36: Jeremiah 1:16; 2 Peter 2:4; 1 Pewter 4:17; Matthew 25:41; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 20:10; Job 11:20; Amos 9:1-4; Jeremiah 11:11; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalm 7:9; Jeremiah 17:10; Proverbs 5:21; Jeremiah 11:20; Romans 2:16; Jeremiah 16:17; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Hebrews 4:13; Genesis 6:7; Genesis 7:21-23; Acts 5:3-10; Joshua 7:24-25; 1 Samuel 3:12-13; Genesis 19:24-25; Daniel 5:22-30; 2 Chronicles 26:16-21; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; Acts 12:22-23 seem to indicate otherwise.
Do you think that John 8:15 "trumps" those other passages, or is it possible that you may have taken the passage out of context with the conclusions that the men will not be judged (at least, not by the Father or Son)? Maybe you should read verse 15 as a part of John 8:14-16. You will find, if you do this, that the context is far different from "the Son says He does not judge man."
I would suggest that this is not speaking of a concept where there are problems in Heaven which have to be corrected, but speak of the issue of God's relationship with that which is Created.
An example of that might be the fate of demons, which is something (as far as we know) eternally settled in the Cross of Christ.
So it is a matter of reconciliation which, because there is an Heavenly element based on it's correlation to that which is created, doesn't imply a problem in Heaven, but problems relative to Heaven.
God bless.
so your official position is : Scripture does contradicts itself.
I haven't check all of your list, but I guarantee, it does not say the Father judges men.. You have to quit changing the meanings, God judged "elohyim We are condemned already. When God judges evil is it limited to flesh?
No, quite the opposite. My official position is that those passages contradict your misinterpretation of Scripture.
Please correct me then
What do you interrupt this verse?
Jhn 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
- Status