How 2 Read John 10:34

[soren]

One of the most common, and I believe strongest, texts that Mormons cite in defense of their theology of exaltation, is John 10:34: â??Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?â?

The most common rebuttalI have found in EV literature is that Jesus is declaring not the divinity but the the condemnation of his accusers, because the verse he cites from Ps. 82 continues â??But you shall die like men.â? The Pharisees are aware of this context and would have understood Jesus as making a rhetorical argument to the effect that although the name â??Godâ? is an honor when applied to himself it is a term of reprobation to his accusers.

This interpretation is not foolish, but it is clearly inadequate, because Jesus cites Ps. 82 not merely as a negative comment against those who deny him, but as a positive warrant for his own claim to divine status. Limiting the meaning of the text to a condemnation of the Pharisees gives primacy to a possible, secondary meaning over and against the primary, surface meaning. That is not how exegesis should work.

The usual Mormon interpretation fares much better in making sense of the immediate context. It views Jesusâ?? as making an a fortiori argument, that is, an argument â??from the stronger,â? in which a truth of a difficult proposition is defended by showing that it is a lesser claim than what oneâ??s opponent already believes. In this case, the Pharisees accept Yahwehâ??s claim that all the mortal elohim are â??gods.â? This is a stronger claim than merely to say that Jesus is a god, so the Pharisees have no warrant to accuse Jesus for making himself God. Their own scriptures bestow the name "god" to many beings besides the Father. This is an even more generous sharing of the title â??Godâ? than Jesus is claiming for himself as â??him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world.â? Hence the Pharisees have no warrant to oppose him. It is easy to see from Jesusâ?? words how this reading makes sense:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (Jn 10:34-36)

This way of reading suffers in my opinion from really only one weakness, but I think it is a fatal weakness: it diminishes the meaning of â??godâ? in a way that interrupts the normal pattern of Jesusâ?? discourses in John. There are many instances in John where Jesus creates offense by making a big bold statement about himself and then responds to the disbelief of his hearers not by qualifying the statement but by making an even bigger claim that the one that shocked them in the first place. (The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 is a good example of this.) Mormon apologists have sometimes pointed to this pattern in defense of their reading because it seems that â??Ye are Godsâ? is a bigger claim than â??I am God.â? But the problem with that is that the a fortiori reading, because it denies the uniqueness of godhood, actually lowers the ante for Jesus. By broadening the meaning of â??godâ? Jesus only reveals that he has not been making such a big claim about himself after all. He ends up making a big claim about human nature, but not about himself; yet continually heightened claims about himself are what define the pattern of Jesusâ?? discourses specifically.

But what alternative is there? I propose that Jesusâ?? argument is a fortiori, from greater to lesser, at all, but is a posteriori, from effect to cause.

A legitimate debate exists as to the identity of the Elohim in Ps 82. Are they a council of divine consorts or human judges? I have no special insight into that and can easily believe either. Because they are guilty of evil and able to die, they cannot be fully exalted beings, but the Mormon reading does not need them to be. The question is for me best answered by referring Ps 82 to Jesusâ??s use of it in John 10. As the author of scripture, Christ is himself its best exegete, and the way he uses the psalm is the best guide for how we should read it.

The key detail in this passage is that Jesus says they are gods â??To whom the word was given.â? It is easy enough to read past this phrase, but it is necessary to stop and ponder it, because it is Jesusâ?? definition of â??gods.â? Gods are those who receive the Word; those to whom the word is not given are not gods. Hence, the word is the efficient cause of divinity in all other beings. This means that they are not â??godsâ?? by their own nature, but by their reception of the divine nature in the word.

In the context of Ps 82, the â??wordâ? is the judgment of God, but Jesus is now using â??wordâ? in a double sense. The new, second meaning is a name for himself as the divine Word made flesh. (Some, such as Bart Ehrman, who deny that Johnâ??s prologue is original to the gospel, cite as evidence the absence of any other Christological uses of Word in John; thay should look again at John 10:35.) Compare what the Prologue and Ps 82 say about divine sonship. Speaking of the Word, the prologue says, â??to as many as received him, he gave authority to become sons of God.â? In Ps 82, those who whom the word was given are gods and â??sons of the Most High.â? In both cases, divine sonship is the result of giving and receiving the word of God.

From this it is apparent how Jesusâ?? argument is to be understood: Because the Word is the cause of divinity in others, it follows that the Word itself is divine. For how could the Word convey divine sonship without possessing divinity himself? With that in mind, look again at Jesusâ?? words: â??If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?â? (10:35-36)

Understood in this way, I believe John 10:34 is thoroughly opposed to Mormon teaching and thoroughly in line with Catholicism. There are few myths in Mormon apologetics more widespread than that the notion that the historic Christian doctrine of theosis is somehow supportive of Mormon notions of exaltation. In reality, they are diametrically opposed and inimical to each other. Exaltation claims that man is a self-existent being, possessing the divine nature independent of it being created or otherwise caused by God, although God is needed to perfect man in the attributes proper to divinity. Theosis teaches that man is created for a supernatural end, that is, man lacks divinity by nature, so God becomes man so as to fill humanity with the divine supernature it otherwise lacks - not divine attributes, divine nature itself. This means that the divine nature is created in man by God, who is therefore "Gods of gods" and yet absolutely unique as the first and uncaused God.

[BCSpace]

I disagree copmpletely. The simplest answer, simple substitution, is the rule of the day here. In Ps 82, the word used for "gods" can be interpreted as either human or divine. John 10:34 tells us exactly which was meant and it's the divine. If you substitute the human into John 10, then Jesus' comparison to himself makes absolutely no sense. The reality is that Jesus is proclaiming our divine nature and heritage along with himself in both the OT and NT and that is why the Jews sought to take him. Why would they care if Jesus was comparing himself to mere mortals?

[maklelan]

One of the most common, and I believe strongest, texts that Mormons cite in defense of their theology of exaltation, is John 10:34: â??Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?â?

I recommend a few articles concerning both topics: Jerome H. Neyrey, "'I said: You are Gods': Psalm 82:6 and John 10," Journal of Biblical Literature 108.4 (Winter 1989): 647-63; Carl Mosser, "The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification," Journal of Theological Studies 56.1 (2005): 30-74; W. S. Prinsloo, â??Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?â? Biblica 76.2 (1995): 219â??28; and Lowell Handy, â??Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82,â? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 47 (1990): 51â??66.

But what alternative is there? I propose that Jesusâ?? argument is a fortiori, from greater to lesser, at all, but is a posteriori, from effect to cause.

A legitimate debate exists as to the identity of the Elohim in Ps 82. Are they a council of divine consorts or human judges? I have no special insight into that and can easily believe either.

I don't think it's considered legitimate by many in the academic community. Michael Heiser (an Evangelical scholar) talks about why it cannot possibly mean human judges here (starting on p. 11). Simply put, the word 'elohim never means human judges. That reading comes from rabbinic paraphrases of scripture in Aramaic, and it's not only rare, but etymologically invalid.

Because they are guilty of evil and able to die, they cannot be fully exalted beings,

I think this begs the question. Nowhere in the Bible are fully exalted beings defined for us. There are ad hoc definitions made by exegetes, but they more often reflect the theology of the exegete than that of the text.

but the Mormon reading does not need them to be. The question is for me best answered by referring Ps 82 to Jesusâ??s use of it in John 10. As the author of scripture, Christ is himself its best exegete, and the way he uses the psalm is the best guide for how we should read it.

I think it's the best guide for how it was interpreted at the end of the Second Temple Period.

The key detail in this passage is that Jesus says they are gods â??To whom the word was given.â? It is easy enough to read past this phrase, but it is necessary to stop and ponder it, because it is Jesusâ?? definition of â??gods.â? Gods are those who receive the Word; those to whom the word is not given are not gods. Hence, the word is the efficient cause of divinity in all other beings. This means that they are not â??godsâ?? by their own nature, but by their reception of the divine nature in the word.

I don't think that clause can be read as causitive. I think it's deictic, pointing to humanity as an identification with the Pharisees. "If God called people like you "gods" . . .

In the context of Ps 82, the â??wordâ? is the judgment of God,

I would say the scriptures are the word of God in that context.

but Jesus is now using â??wordâ? in a double sense. The new, second meaning is a name for himself as the divine Word made flesh. (Some, such as Bart Ehrman, who deny that Johnâ??s prologue is original to the gospel, cite as evidence the absence of any other Christological uses of Word in John; thay should look again at John 10:35.)

Again, begging the question. You presuppose the use in John 10:35 is identical and use that presupposition as the foundation for the argument that the use in John 10:35 is identical. It refers to the scriptures. According to John 10:35, the people being called "gods" are the Jews who wrote the text and the Jews who read it.

Compare what the Prologue and Ps 82 say about divine sonship. Speaking of the Word, the prologue says, â??to as many as received him, he gave authority to become sons of God.â? In Ps 82, those who whom the word was given are gods and â??sons of the Most High.â? In both cases, divine sonship is the result of giving and receiving the word of God.

But you have a problem if that interpretation is correct, because the people who have become divine sons are corrupt judges over the nations of the earth who are killed by God and replaced by Yahweh. That doesn't square with the context of John 1:12.

From this it is apparent how Jesusâ?? argument is to be understood: Because the Word is the cause of divinity in others, it follows that the Word itself is divine. For how could the Word convey divine sonship without possessing divinity himself? With that in mind, look again at Jesusâ?? words: â??If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?â? (10:35-36)

But here the "Word" is calling himself the Son of God. Is it in the same sense that humans are given divine sonship? He offers no alternative. Is the word divine through participation in the divine essence? That's what this interpretation would be left with.

Understood in this way, I believe John 10:34 is thoroughly opposed to Mormon teaching and thoroughly in line with Catholicism. There are few myths in Mormon apologetics more widespread than that the notion that the historic Christian doctrine of theosis is somehow supportive of Mormon notions of exaltation. In reality, they are diametrically opposed and inimical to each other. Exaltation claims that man is a self-existent being, possessing the divine nature independent of it being created or otherwise caused by God, although God is needed to perfect man in the attributes proper to divinity.

Mormons do not believe that. We believe our divinization is accomplished through Christ and is always subordinate to his. The difference is we don't believe our divinity is comparable to standing under God's umbrella, we believe God gives us (we do not take it, buy it, or earn it) our own umbrella.

Theosis teaches that man is created for a supernatural end, that is, man lacks divinity by nature, so God becomes man so as to fill humanity with the divine supernature it otherwise lacks - not divine attributes, divine nature itself. This means that the divine nature is created in man by God, who is therefore "Gods of gods" and yet absolutely unique as the first and uncaused God.

The only real difference between that interpretation and ours is that that interpretation introduces the idea that Christ is dual in nature and humanity is singular in nature, thus forever precluding a taxonomic relationship. That definition, however, is part of an attempt to protect strict monotheism, account for the fact that Jesus is not the same person as God, and put as much distance as possible between God and humanity (entirely in response to Greek criticisms of Christianity as base and polytheistic). It also relies on what I believe to be ad hoc philosophical smoke and mirrors.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Understood in this way, I believe John 10:34 is thoroughly opposed to Mormon teaching and thoroughly in line with Catholicism. There are few myths in Mormon apologetics more widespread than that the notion that the historic Christian doctrine of theosis is somehow supportive of Mormon notions of exaltation. In reality, they are diametrically opposed and inimical to each other. Exaltation claims that man is a self-existent being, possessing the divine nature independent of it being created or otherwise caused by God, although God is needed to perfect man in the attributes proper to divinity. Theosis teaches that man is created for a supernatural end, that is, man lacks divinity by nature, so God becomes man so as to fill humanity with the divine supernature it otherwise lacks - not divine attributes, divine nature itself. This means that the divine nature is created in man by God, who is therefore "Gods of gods" and yet absolutely unique as the first and uncaused God.

For my interpretation, which is in some ways quite similar to yours, but, in fact, is in line with LDS teachings, go here:

http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Reconsidering_Psalms_82_6.html

Personally, quite a bit of what you wrote is rather reasonable, and a fair amount is simply not reasonable. But, if you get through reading my short essay, and want to discuss particulars, I would be happy to.

Ben M.

[maklelan]

For my interpretation, which is in some ways quite similar to yours, but, in fact, is in line with LDS teachings, go here:

http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Reconsidering_Psalms_82_6.html

Personally, quite a bit of what you wrote is rather reasonable, and a fair amount is simply not reasonable. But, if you get through reading my short essay, and want to discuss particulars, I would be happy to.

Ben M.

Ben, you might add to the reading list Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. It discusses the Ugaritic context of the divine council and how it relates to the Israelite manifestation of it. The most interesting discussion, in my opinion, is the four-tiered pantheon of early Israelite theology. El and his wife in the first tier, Yahweh and the rest of the seventy sons of El in the second (70 nations on the earth in early Israelite tradition. See Deut 32:, craftsmen deities in the third (not well represented in Israelite literature), and messengers and other menial deities in the fourth (cherubim, mal'akim, seraphim, etc.). Around the eighth century or so the top two tiers were collapsed, as were the bottom two, conflating Yahweh and El. This enlarged the taxonomic gap between God and the other deities, and it's why the benei elohim, originally members of the second tier, were then associated with angels in the bottom tier. You might also check out Carl Mosser, "The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification," Journal of Theological Studies 56.1 (2005): 30-74