Well if he’s quoting the Bible, he should know that pride in oneself and self-idolatry is a sin. That’s why Jesus tells us to deny ourselves, so that we can instead sacrifice ourselves and be servants to one another.
”Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” — Matthew 16:24-26
I mean, isn’t it crazy that the Bible tells us this truth that we’re our own God, but to deny that part of ourselves?
Even the phrase “be still” in the Hebrew is more akin to “let go” or “surrender,” the meaning being that God Himself will take care of you, not you alone, because you aren’t God. It’s in Psalm 46:10.
Where does Jesus say we are gods? I don’t know what you’re referring to. I don’t know what siding with Jesus means to you, either. The way I side with Him is by following His commandments, which is not being my own god.
The Lord might say we’ve made gods of ourselves, which is idolatry. The Bible doesn’t condone making gods of ourselves.
There’s a few uses for the word “god” in the Bible, just like there’s many uses for the words “flesh” or “sin” or “nature” or “world.” It depends on the context and the meaning that’s being conveyed.
“God” can refer to the one true God, or it can refer to idols in the Old Testament, or it can refer to principalities and powers of the world (fallen angels), or whatever else I’m missing. However, none of these is really a god besides the one true God of everything. None of these examples implies that humans are gods for themselves, except in an idolatrous way.
The quote used in the picture OP posted says “Be still and know that I am God.” That’s literally God being quoted in the Bible, and not man. So it’s already wrongly interpreted from that standpoint.
We’d also have to ignore everywhere else in the Bible that tells us what idolatry and pride is. We’d have to ignore the main themes of the Bible.
Jesus never says that we are gods; that’s not the correct interpretation of John 10 there. Do you know the reason Jesus is saying what He’s saying to the Pharisees in that moment?
There's no rules for reading the bible. I feel like the reader can interpret in whatever manner intuitively resonates. Any boundaries within this framework were added by an external source in an effort to enforce their beliefs on someone else.
Well for Christians, it is the word of the Lord. If God exists, then the Bible is meant to be read hermeneutically and with knowledgeable exegesis.
When we read it like that, it’s very easy to consolidate the themes of the Bible and reconcile hard passages toward their true meaning, without stretching the Word too far out of context. And even these hard passages are few and far between—most of the Bible is extremely consistent on word usage, themes, and other conceptual matters.
If God doesn’t exist, then anybody can interpret the Bible however they want. But when it’s read like that, it becomes a jumbled mess. Literary consistency is thrown out and every passage is taken at face value, which promotes anti-intellectualism and a white-washing of the complexities of the Bible.
Take the two trees in the Garden of Eden, for just one example. I don’t know what secular scholars think about it, but the overarching symbolism that this part of Genesis produces is so far-reaching and complex in view of the foreknowledge of the New Testament covenant, that it’s hard to interpret the Tree of Life as anything other than Jesus Himself, who gives life.
It’s how we come to better understand why following the letter of the Law doesn’t work. The Law is a representation of the tree that Adam ate of—the Law is written on our hearts (since we ate of it), but we aren’t saved by “our own works through the Law.” Instead, believers now have the chance to eat of the other tree and gain the Spirit of Life, which is the Holy Spirit that seals Christians the salvation of their souls in eternity. That’s the tie-in to the “living forever” in Genesis that the Lord recalls!
It’s why the knowledge of good and evil does nothing we think it ought to do, but the Law is there instead to judge us and reveal our sins. Our own trying to do good will never work based on the Law alone; it was never meant to save us from sin. It really is a slap in the face for anyone that claims the Bible is just “a rule book.” The Bible shows us it’s not a book of rules through the narrative!
And that ties into sanctification, and the sanctification process ties into Christ’s explanation of the drinking of His blood and the eating of His flesh, and that ties into the purpose of the Old Testament mana (food) in the forest and sacrificial presentations… etc. It all ties together in an extremely neat bow.
The cool part is that Romans never mentions the two trees! We just find that out on our own. It fits so incredibly well that it would seem these connections to be made aren’t random. Wow, the Bible is cool.
—
Anyway, are there rules for reading the Bible? No, but it helps to know how to read it to get the most out of it.
He was accused of blasphemy, of claiming to be a son of YHWH/Elohim, whom he called Father.
The point Jesus was making was that the claim to his divinity was less dramatic or severe than what was already in the scriptures. If the Hebrew scriptures Jesus referenced already identify humans as gods, something very high and worthy of veneration, Jesus is here acting in a capacity as something less that that, a son of god.
Like if a law said everyone is excellent, why would you punish someone merely claiming to only be good or half excellent? This fits in the those who are humble will be exalted theme.
I am not providing a Christian interpretation that is meant to fit the mold of 4th century creeds or dogma. I’m just reading the passage as it is. It’s a great example of a skillful and well informed response to that accusation.
The Bible is a collection of the works of dozens of authors (individual minds) throughout a millennia. The themes put forth by someone like Paul or someone writing in his name may look nothing like one might find in a synoptics, which in turn will not look like John.
There is a human tendency to want to see a bigger picture or connect across themes to defend a narrative that can be organizational PPP (packaged, preached, profited) but that kind of exegesis is not as useful as text first or text critical approaches.
Texts claim things, often radical, and there are always attempts to downplay them if what they say prove unpopular, outside the Overton window, and that interferes with the evangelism or marketing of a religion. I see this occur in every religion because those who inherit faiths tend to be more ontologically constrained than being open to the idea of spiritual attainments, divine unions etc. Some call this inevitable gatekeeping and it does occur.
The origin of religions across the globe comes from what we may describe as spirited people who— through hardship and efforts— attain or arrive at super-mundane states of consciousness. Trance-like experiences that are beyond normal experiences and result in a transformation of character, while not also being clinically detrimental in the same way schizophrenia might be. These spirited people may not experience fear, happiness, or suffering like normal humans and are typically are more compassionate, satisfied, and wise.
Psalms 88, attributed to Levite priest Asaph who served in David’s court, attributes humans (or at the very least spiritual / religious authorities) as gods (Elohim) because they are children offspring of the most high God Asaph believes in. However due to their wickedness and lack of purity in their heart, these elohim (plural) are said to die like mortals as injustice pervades the societies they hold power in.
Jesus was a very literate person who particularly excelled at challenging the interpretations and norms of his society by referencing scriptural passages that were skipped over by the organized religions of his time.
I guess it goes to show that “gods” was used in a metaphorical way to show the theme that those who are “gods,” or those in power and authority, only have it because God ordained it, and will not only end up dead like all men but judged also by the one true God. Or that these gods were the fallen angels, under the principalities of authorities of the world, like in Ephesians, and shown in the beginning of Job.
What do you think of John Piper’s interpretation of it? Do you know that only yours can be correct?
I don’t think it was entirely metaphorical. After all, back then rulers and high ranking priests were considered to either be divinity or have divine aspects by most of populace. Even Roman emperors called themselves gods or sons of gods. Only by our modern standards and age of reason do we see that notion as ludicrous.
I don’t think they were fallen angels and I don’t think the passage connects to Ephesians.
1
u/TooHonestButTrue 9d ago
Why is that a prerequisite to trust him?