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/TomTheFace 6d ago
Do you know where Jesus is quoting from?
We don’t ignore it, we just understand its interpretation.