Pages

Saturday, June 10, 2017

I said you are gods

Recent exchange between apostate Dale Tuggy and me:

Hays
Jews prayed the Shema every day. Any observant Jew would instantly register an allusion to the Shema in Jn 10:30. Jesus knew that.

Tuggy
Again, you ignore the Lord's correction of the spiritually blind opponents in John 10:34-36, not to mention the context in John of that "one" statement. You also ignore the obvious implication of John's thesis - that Jesus is not God himself. The "Son of God" is (explicitly in John) none other than the Messiah, the man anointed by God. This special man, anointed by God, is not God himself. He, John has him explicitly say, has a God, who is the same god over you and me. That god is the Father. (John 20:17) In other words (John 5:43-44), the only god, Yahweh. Why do you beat your head against these obvious facts of the text?

Hays
i) The context of the Jn 10:30 is a dispute over the identity of Jesus. The context of 10:30 is a Jewish audience who recited the Shema every day. The only way Jesus could reasonably expect them to interpret his statement is an allusion to Deut 6:4. In context, the statement would inevitably trigger that association. Hence, he's claiming to be the Lord of the Shema. 

ii) In v36, Jesus uses "son of God" as a synonym for "God" in v33. They accuse him of making himself "God". Yet, in v36, he translates their allegation as equivalent to the accusation that he's the "Son of God". So he himself uses "God" and "Son of God" as interchangeable labels in that context.

iii) To be anointed by "God" is to be anointed by the "Father". John typically uses "God" as a synonymous proper name for the "Father"–although there are some striking exceptions that accentuate the deity of Christ (Jn 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 Jn 5:20).

iv) Regarding vv34-36, his counterargument turns in part on the identity of the "gods" in Ps 82:6. I believe most modern scholars think the original referent is either God sarcastically addressing the "gods" of the nations, or God addressing the angels of the nations (i.e. angels put in charge of nations). 

In either case, Jesus is presenting an a fortiori argument. If Scripture can property use a divine designation in the lesser case of angels or heathen deities, then with far more propriety can it be used in the greater case of the Son.

v) "Sent into the world" (36) implies the preexistence of the Son. 

vi) Finally, you falsely assume that "God" is a divine designation, but "Son of God" is not. Yet it's demonstrable that in the Johannine corpus, as well as some other NT writings, "Son of God" is a divine title. 

Tuggy
You just choose your own speculations over Jesus's explicit correction. Really, you ought to take Jesus more seriously.

Hays
Revealing when a philosophy prof. is forced to resort to sophistry. 

i) To begin with, your reply is a tacit admission that you have no direct rebuttal for my argument. You haven't bothered to explain how a Jewish audience, not to mention a Jewish audience in the context of a dispute over the identity of Jesus, could fail to take Jn 10:30 as anything other than a studied allusion to the Shema. 

ii) You then pretend that I prefer my "own speculations" to Christ's "explicit correction". But, of course, I then spent some time exegeting the verses you appeal to. 

Tuggy
Whoah. Stop right there. It is Jesus's blind enemies that say he's claiming to be God in v. 33. You need to see that you're siding with them, against Jesus!

Hays
More sophistry from you. Did I deny that the speakers in v33 are his adversaries? No.

But the truth or falsity of their allegation depends on how Jesus responds and/or how the narrator contextualizes their allegation.

In passages like Jn 8 and Jn 10, the mistake of the Jewish opponents is not in what they discern Jesus to be saying about himself, but in their refusal to believe what he says and intends. 

It's not a simply question of right or wrong. Rather, they get the interpretation right, but refuse to believe it. That's part of the Johannine irony which threads its way through the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Hostile testimony that unwittingly bears witness to the true identity of Christ.

Tuggy
So, you choose not to see his correction. :-/ Deity of Christ uber alles - never mind how John uses "the Son of God" interchangeably with 'the Messiah' (John 20:31).

Hays
Yet more of your sophistry. Because, once again, you can't directly refute my argument, you change the subject. 

In addition, you erect a false dichotomy between messiahship and divine sonship, as if there can't be a divine messiah. 

Tuggy
The way to easily see how you're misreading John here in ch 10 is to see how your reading misfits the logic of Jesus's argument in correcting his opponents.

Hays
Yes, you keep thumping that drum, but I reject your interpretation. What is more, I exegeted the verses you cite. I provided a justification for my own interpretation, refuting yours.

Tuggy
Part of his point is that 'Son of God' is a lesser title than 'God'.

Hays
That's a point you impute to him, but it's hardly his point.

Tuggy
In any case, he can't here be claiming to be God - he immediately goes on to say that he's and God are cooperating together (vv. 37-39). This presupposes that they're two selves.

Hays
So you take refuge in your customary equivocations, which I've exploded on multiple occasions. You never advance the argument, Dale. You just push the rewind button and replay all the same oft-refuted arguments you always use.

4 comments:

  1. I would say his confusion regarding the NT use of theos/God is understandable from someone with a philosophical background rather than a NT exegetical background. But Steve has corrected him so many times on this, I can only conclude it is willing ignorance at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can see Hays hasn't really studied the phrase "sent into the world," because the apostles were also "sent into the world" as Jesus was... John 17:18. The preexistence goggles are quite thick on Hays. Guess the apostles also preexisted.

    And Hays also misuses the anarthrous "theos" in this text which likely means "a god" due to Jesus' response using Psalm 82 which Hays admits could refer to a lowercase "god."

    It's clear Hays is ignoring Jesus' response and incorrectly linking Jesus' usage of "en" in John 10:30. I suggest Hays takes the time to read the entire Gospel of John before making these statements that make no sense in consistency or context as shown before with "sent into the world." The context of John 10 says nothing about the Shema and the usage shows Jesus is referring to his unity with his God and Father in shepherding the sheep as God gave him that authority. John 17 shows Jesus claiming the apostles are also to be "one JUST AS" Jesus and his God are one. I think this god of Hays has way more persons than he may like to admit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I can see Hays hasn't really studied the phrase 'sent into the world,' because the apostles were also 'sent into the world' as Jesus was... John 17:18. The preexistence goggles are quite thick on Hays. Guess the apostles also preexisted."

      i) Simplistic. In the Johannine context, the "world" stands in contrast to heaven. Jesus was sent into the world from heaven. In his case, "sent into the world" is shorthand, not just for where he went, but where he came from.

      ii) Moreover, this isn't the only verse for preexistence. I mentioned it because Jn 10 is the immediate question at issue. But other prooftexts for preexistence include Jn 1:1-3 and 17:5.

      "And Hays also misuses the anarthrous 'these' in this text which likely means 'a god' due to Jesus' response using Psalm 82 which Hays admits could refer to a lowercase 'god.'"

      The only singular theos in the passage is v33, but in that case the Jews are accusing Jesus of making himself the God of Israel.

      "The context of John 10 says nothing about the Shema and the usage shows Jesus is referring to his unity with his God and Father in shepherding the sheep as God gave him that authority."

      The parable of the Good Shepherd is from a separate scene. Different time, different place.

      "John 17 shows Jesus claiming the apostles are also to be 'one JUST AS' Jesus and his God are one."

      i) Different context.

      ii) Doesn't say the disciples will be one with the Father and Son, but one with each other. The Father and Son form one group while the disciples form another group. Two separate groups.

      iii) If, moreover, you're going to the parable of the Good Shepherd as your interpretive grid, the Shepherd is categorically distinct from the sheep. The disciples comprise one flock of sheep. That's hardly equivalent to the unity between the Father and the Son.

      Delete
  3. There are many passages in the Gospel of John that either clearly/expressly teach or strongly imply Christ's preexistence (e.g. John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14]).

    There are also the numerous times in the Gospel of John when Jesus said that He was sent by the Father (e.g. John 3:17, 34; 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 36, 37, 38; 6:29, 38, 39, 44, 57; 7:16, 18, 28, 29, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21).

    The natural reading of those passages is one of preexistence. It's those who reject preexistence who have to use ad hoc and special pleading fallacies to argue against the natural reading of preexistence.

    For evidence on Christ's Pre-existence, see my blogpost:

    Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels
    http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/06/pre-existence-of-jesus-in-synoptic.html

    ReplyDelete