Contra Stavrinides Index
Next Part
Previous Part
Contra Stavrinides
by Frank Nelte
PART XIII: JOHN 10:34 AND "YOU ARE GODS"
On tape #5 Dr. Stavrinides commented on John 10:34. His goal was once again to "prove" that this verse can't possibly mean what it says. His discussion again made clear that he himself does not really believe the Bible.
Here are some quotes from the lectures:
"The New Testament says 'YOU ARE GODS' only because the LXX says it." (tape #6)
"'You are gods' is a quote from Psalm 82 which is really UNTRANSLATABLE." (TAPE #5)
"It (John 10:34) is NOT A THEOLOGICAL STATEMENT in the New Testament, just an argument." (tape #5)
"Christ (in John 10) didn't say anything about ELOHIM at all." (tape #5)
"(Referring to Psalm 82:7) this is talking about HUMAN BEINGS ... who are behaving like 'mighty ones' ... (then referring to verse 6) ... these are JUDGES WHO ARE MISUSING THEIR OFFICES." (tape #5)
"I said it about 1001 times that the Bible is NOT a theological textbook and I'll say it again." (tape #10)
Let's examine the facts.
That's because the theology textbooks contradict the Bible at every turn ... so obviously the Bible doesn't fit into the company of "theology" textbooks. IF the Bible would actually be in agreement with the "theology" that Dr. Stavrinides wants us to accept, then he would gladly promote it as "THE textbook of theology". But since "theology", as used by Dr. Stavrinides, means one of the branches of philosophy that originated with Plato, OBVIOUSLY the Bible cannot be a textbook of "theology".
After all, the Bible didn't even remotely feature in Plato's thinking. However, this does not mean that the Bible is of no value to the "theologian". It is in fact extremely valuable in providing little snippets, taken out of context, which, with a little bit of panelbeating, can be put to good use to shore up the views of the philosophers of Romans 1:22.
WHAT CHRIST SAID IN JOHN 10:34 HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LXX! NOTHING AT ALL!
The only Greek versions of O.T. books in the first century A.D. were slipshod mickey-mouse efforts that had originated primarily in Alexandria, Egypt. Just because Origen, about 150 years later, happened to translate Psalm 82:6 correctly since he could not avoid the N.T. quotation in John 10:34, does not in any way prove that Jesus Christ was somehow "quoting" this corrupt LXX text.
Listen!
The Apostle John was "inspired by God" to record his gospel. Do we agree on this?
ALL SCRIPTURE [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)
Surely "all scripture" includes John 10:34! To imply that if there had not been an LXX version in John's time, THEN God would have inspired this quote to be preserved in different Greek words, is ludicrous. If this is supposed to imply that Christ was actually "quoting" the LXX version (which didn't exist in its present format at Christ's time and for the existence of which the proof is notoriously lacking!) then that is even more ludicrous!
Jesus Christ is the One who had inspired David to write these words. Jesus Christ, in quoting this verse, said that David wrote this under inspiration. In so doing Christ was SHOWING GODLY APPROVAL for the Greek translation of this particular Hebrew verse! But Dr. Stavrinides doesn't like the Greek text which Jesus Christ clearly endorsed.
Can you see what that particular argument is supposed to do?.
Instead of looking at what the scripture actually says, he wants to twist Psalm 82 to do away with Jesus Christ's clear words in John 10:34. So let's now LOOK AT Christ's words very carefully, something Dr. Stavrinides again does not do.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (John 10:35)
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? (John 10:36)
Dr. Stavrinides wants to argue that the inspired Greek word "THEOS" in verses 34 and 35 should be translated as "JUDGES"; and he is supposed to be the expert on the Greek language!
IN GREEK THE WORD "THEOS" MEANS "GOD" AND THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS!
This is one example that illustrates my point #9 at the bottom of page 3, regarding twisting the meaning of words.
Is it wrong or inappropriate to look at John 10 without first thoroughly going through Psalm 82? No, it is not! Jesus Christ, who Himself had inspired Psalm 82, took a meaningful quote from that Psalm and put it into His reasoning. That reasoning is very simple and easy to follow and it goes like this:
IF David in the Psalms already pointed out (one of many things that you Pharisees have never really understood) that you, mortal human beings, have the potential to become "Gods" (Elohim in Hebrew and theos in Greek), THEN what is so strange or unreasonable about my statement that I am the Son of God, something you too have the potential of becoming?
THAT is the reasoning Christ was presenting to the Pharisees. Just READ the context of John 10:34 ... it's very clear.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are JUDGES (theos)? 35 If he called them JUDGES (theos), unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 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 (theos)? (John 10:34-36)
What kind of an argument would that make? A VERY SILLY ONE! Also, have we ever considered that "JUDGES" are a very select group of people? Less than one in a thousand will ever be a "judge" ... unless we also panelbeat the word "judge" a little bit.
Perhaps the inspired word "theos" here should be replaced by "mighty ones", since that is how the LXX "sometimes" translates it. Let's see if that makes sense:
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are MIGHTY ONES (theos)? 35 If he called them MIGHTY ONES (theos), unto whom the word of God came, and THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN; 36 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 (theos)? (John 10:34-36)
Does that make the argument sound any better? No, it is still only a silly argument. Why did Christ use the word "THEOS" and then follow this with: "and the scripture cannot be broken", if He didn't really mean "THEOS"?
In verse 36 Jesus Christ is using REASONING! The statements in the two previous verses are intended to support His claim that He is "THE SON OF GOD". He did not mean to say "the son of the Mighty One" or "the son of the Judge" ... He clearly meant to say "THE SON OF GOD". That was what the whole issue was about in the first place ... see the previous verse.
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that THOU, BEING A MAN, MAKEST THYSELF GOD. (John 10:33)
In this context any rendition of the quote from Psalm 82:6 as anything other than "YOU ARE GODS" is meaningless.
Listen:
When the carnal pagan philosopher Plato makes a statement, what is that? It is a THEOLOGICAL statement.
But when THEOS Himself (Jesus Christ, THEOS in the flesh) makes a statement, then what is that? It is certainly NOT a "THEOLOGICAL" statement; it is just an argument.
That kind of reasoning is weird! It shows how the philosophers twist the meanings of words to fit in with their own ideas!
Is there ever a statement that "THEOS" makes that is not "THEOLOGICAL"? No! "Theological" comes from "theos" + "logos" and it means: words of God. It does not mean "discourse ABOUT God", as Dr. Stavrinides would have us believe.
To the claim that John 10:34 is not a theological statement Jesus Christ says:
"ekurôsate ton logon tou theou" i.e. you have made void the word of God.
Dr. Stavrinides knows that he can't really do away with John 10:34, though he does his best to do so. And the best he can do is claim:
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and HEARKEN TO MY WORDS: (Acts 2:14)
The expression "hearken to my words" is translated from "enôtisasthe ta rhêmata mou", i.e. give ear to my words. What follows is a "discourse" that Peter gives, which culminates in 3,000 people being baptized (verse 41).
Another example of the use of "rhêma" is found in IIPeter 3:2.
That ye may be mindful of THE WORDS which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: (IIPeter 3:2)
The Greek for "the words" is "rêmatôn", the genitive case of "rhêma" after "mnêsthênai" (i.e. "that ye should remember" or "be mindful of"). By the expression "the words of the holy prophets" Peter means what we might call "the discourses" that the prophets gave.
The point of all this is that the combination:
"theos" + "logos" doesn't mean "A DISCOURSE about God" and it doesn't mean "a discourse ABOUT God" either. "Theology" really means "the words OF God" ... and they are recorded ONLY in the Bible. That is why it is called "THE WORD OF GOD".
So John 10:34 once again clearly disproves Dr. Stavrinides' whole presentation.