New Thoughts (11/05/09-11/10/09)
While there is some powerful theological meat in this passage, there is also a lot here that has been abused by careless teachers. Whether their lack of care is due to a determination to teach their own opinions, or merely a lack of diligence, the end result is nearly the same: a message that quotes Scripture and yet departs wholly from Scripture’s authority. As such, before I look at the difficult portion of what Jesus has said, I need to nail down the simplest point that He makes, because it is a point that is critical to dealing with Scripture at all.
I am speaking of that parenthetical point made at the end of verse 35: Scripture cannot be broken. To put it differently, it is inviolate. It cannot be deprived of its authority. It remains binding and always shall, for it is the covenant established by an unchanging and eternal God. Thus, the same eternal and unchanging nature of God which gives us confidence in our salvation requires us to recognize that His word does not change. He does not change.
There is a great pressure upon the preacher to come up with something new to say about the faith, to declare something nobody else has ever come up with. That pressure comes at least in part from the congregation, because the congregation wants to hear something new. It is the effect of our culture with its ever shrinking attention span, I’m afraid, but a goodly portion of the present day church is looking for entertainment as much or more than it’s looking for anything like sound teaching. So, like our politics, we tend to get what we pay for.
In this, we neglect the very basic, foundational point: God doesn’t change. The God of the Old Covenant is the God of the New Covenant. He was not an angry tyrant then and only now has He become a doting and lovable Father. He was and He is. His wrath against sin is no less now than then. His mercy is no greater now than then. He doesn’t change. The same jealousy He felt for His people throughout the ages remains. The same demand for justice remains.
We may yet stumble upon things that are new to our understanding. We might even come to a place of what really and truly constitutes a fresh revelation, although that seems doubtful. But, as we evaluate this new material, we must be vigilant to test whether it is of a piece with what has been revealed before. The New Testament does not suddenly require that the Old Testament be jettisoned and forgotten. The Law was not repealed and annulled when Jesus taught. No! He makes that exceedingly clear. He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. He came and He taught of that Law in such a fashion as to reestablish a true understanding of its requirements, not to suggest that we blow it off.
Can we truly suppose that the nature of sin has changed because Christ came? Can we really suppose that God has become such a patsy that we can just do as we please without fear of reprisal from a just God? Do we think maybe that He is no longer just, only forgiving? It’s as though we conceive of the New Testament God (as if there were such a thing distinct from the Old Testament God) as one of those jolly father figures whose sole response to every error in their children is, “Oh, that’s OK.” No reprisals. No consequences. Just a pat on the head and maybe the request that you not do that again.
But, what Jesus says here, as He says elsewhere, is that Scripture cannot be broken. Whatever, then, we find as His meaning in the rather odd statement He made, we should understand that it cannot be taken in any sense contradictory to what is upheld by the rest of Scripture. This is one of the fundamental rules of comprehending Scripture. If we come to a verse in one place and build up a meaning for that verse which is totally at odds with what is clearly declared elsewhere in Scripture, then we must recognize that we have something wrong in our comprehension.
Even this simple point is often abused. We come across those who will use this principle (or attempt to anyway) as a means of insisting that a plainly stated verse doesn’t mean what it appears to. But, as a foundation, they look to a more obscure verse. Yes, Scripture is the best commentary on Scripture. Yes, the whole must inform our understanding of the part. But, it ought to be plain to us that what is stated clearly and simply is to be understood plainly and simply. What is obscure requires that we seek the more clearly stated principle elsewhere. If the clear statement indicates that God is ‘A’, then we cannot accept an interpretation of the obscure which indicates that He is ‘B’.
I belabor this point somewhat because the passage before us is often subjected to very poor exegetical handling in an effort to make it say something new and novel, something which can find not further support in Scripture. Shouldn’t we find it a bit suspect to discern a doctrinal point in one verse out of this whole text, and that point one that two thousand years of study have failed to reveal to any other? Don’t you suppose that the God who requires two or three witnesses to establish a point, having done so throughout His Scriptures for all manner of other points of doctrine, would leave this one thing dangling here, hidden in obscurity, waiting for some twenty-first century orator to stumble upon? Do we really think so highly of ourselves?
I dare not! Honestly, in the course of studying these Gospels, given the length of the study, I have not availed myself of the commentaries as I normally would. And with equal honestly I have to say that leaves me feeling a bit exposed, at risk. Look, the words of Jesus are often very difficult to really come to grips with. He so often seems to be speaking to a point quite aside from what is going on. One has to work to recognize how His message relates to the situation around Him. It’s very easy, under such circumstances, to let imaginative flights of fancy take the place of serious understanding.
It would be easy to look at this quote of the Psalms, and get all excited about how Jesus has declared that we are all gods. Why, even with the little g that’s pretty exciting, isn’t it? Ooh, ooh! We can do these little miracle thingies, too! Ooh! And look! He said we’d do greater things than He did. So, if He fed 5000, why I should be able to do at least 15k, even with one fish! He calmed that tiny sea up in Galilee. I ought to be able to flatten the waves of a hurricane down in the Gulf, right? He pulled a gold coin from a fish’s mouth. I should be able to do wonders with my bank account, yes?
But, we need to go back to “Scripture cannot be broken.” Scripture says (repeatedly and clearly) there is One God. He will not share His glory with another. There is no other. There is not some pantheon up there with Abba Father at its head. It’s not like the Greeks thought, with Juno on the throne and all his unruly godchildren out terrorizing the peasants. There is One. When we come to this business of the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, that, too, must hold with the fact that there is One. This is where the Jews had trouble, and it’s not unreasonable that they should. We, if anything, are far too willing to let go of every theological point in the name of ‘revelation’.
So, first and foremost, we need to take a moment to reestablish the context from which Jesus is quoting. He did not just pull this verse out to be dealt with in isolation. He doesn’t play that game. That’s a devil’s game. Neither did He expect His listeners to take the verse in some sense that could only hold by keeping it in isolation. These were a people steeped in their faith. These were the leaders of such a people. They should be expected to return to the text in question, if they didn’t recognize the setting from memory. We should likewise be returning to the full text of Psalm 82 in order to seek a better understanding of what Jesus meant, and the proper bounds of its application.
In that Psalm, we read that God is come to judge His own, particularly the rulers of His people. What is His issue? They judge unjustly and with partiality shown to the wicked (Ps 82:1-2). This is done in opposition to those most in need of justice (Ps 82:3-4). The implication one might draw from this is that they were practicing justice for pay. Their judgments went to the highest bidder. It is for this cause that they are declared to be devoid of understanding, walking in the darkness of ignorance or worse (Ps 82:5).
Into this backdrop, the quoted words are spoken, as from God’s voice: “I said, ‘You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High.” But, this is followed by condemnation: “Nevertheless you will die and fall like any other princes” (Ps 82:6-7). The message seems clear enough: You were granted authority and privilege in God’s name, but you abused it, so you are to be treated like the heathens. If you walk in darkness, expect to be given the same consideration as those pagan nations that walk in darkness, for you have made yourself one of them. It is rejection from the recognition they had once enjoyed. This gives us the sense of the critical verse. When God says, “I said, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High,’” it is not in commendation of their record, but as further evidence of their crimes. It is as saying, “I granted you to represent My interests, to speak on My authority.”
Those, then, who look at this verse and come away excited by the thought that they are declared gods by God and that they should therefore start playing their miracle games, are either willfully or ignorantly ignoring the very point that God is making in this statement. He is not establishing their authority, but declaring it revoked. He is not commending but condemning. This point must not be lost on us as we consider what Jesus means by availing Himself of that quote.
Back up, though, and set the scene. We open with the Jews preparing to stone Jesus. This is to say that they intend to impose their judgment. They are standing as judges, and exercising the Law as laid out for them in Leviticus 24:16. The penalty is imposed for blasphemy, and it is against this charge that Jesus is making His case.
That word blasphemy is worth thinking on briefly. Blasphemy has to do with speaking injuriously against the good name of another. It is slander or libel. We tend to think of it in particular as it applies to God, but it need not be so. It is just that as God’s name is good as no other the one who libels His good name has committed an act that is evil as no other. Now, consider what it was that these men thought constituted the crime of libeling God. They had asked Jesus to tell them whether or not He was the Messiah, and this against the backdrop of Jesus’ repeated references to His Father, the Father. They have asked Him, then, to tell them plainly (Jn 10:24), and He has: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30). This is the thing that has set them off. “You are a man, yet you make Yourself out to be God” (v33).
You can’t take that as them saying He makes Himself equal to God or equivalent with God, because they understand that to be equal to God you must be God. Neither are they inclined to have those Greek concepts of the gods visiting in human form for the pleasures of procreation added to their own faith. Such things the pagans may imagine, but it has no place in the revealed religion. In this they are quite correct. These things don’t have a place in revealed religion. Neither does the abused application of this passage as suggesting that we have all been transformed into some legion of little gods. There are no Titans in the ranks of heaven. There is God. There are His angels. There are His saints. Nowhere is it suggested that God and man were ever engaged in intercourse. The nearest one approaches this is the conception of the Christ in Mary’s womb, but even here, there is not intercourse, just implanting.
So, they are disturbed greatly by the answer Jesus gives, but this is another side effect of their misapprehension of what Messiah is. They are looking for a man, and they have found God. They are looking for a soldier and they have found the Servant. He is not what they were looking for, and they are wholly unprepared to accept this One God has sent. They are rushing to judgment, and the judgment they render is of a piece with that of which God complained in Psalm 82. They are showing partiality to the wicked, to the Liar himself, and refuse to uphold the cause of the poor, yet honest Teacher they have before them. They have, as a people, abused the privilege of bearing God’s name, of being His people. They have chosen to walk in darkness, and God is going to judge them as citizens of that darkness.
Thus, Jesus comes against their charges, saying, “Look! God Himself said of those who ruled and judged in His name, ‘you are gods.’ Do you stone Him, then, for offering the same equating of man and God of which you accuse Me?”
I said, “I am a son of Elohim” [CJB]. Now, quite frankly, that’s not what He said, but it continues His point more clearly, and the fact that He takes this avenue presupposes that His hearers had heard what He did say as implying the case. I note as well that in spite of the majority of translations saying, “I said, ‘I am the Son of God,’” it is not clear that such a translation fits in this case. The tou is there, but it seems to point to God, rather than Son. In other words, “I said, ‘I am son of the God’”. Now, I’m no expert on the syntax, but the case used for tou mates with that of God, but not with that of Son. So, He may not be making so strong a case for His being the Son as it appears here.
OK. With a little more observation, I must strike this point, and hold that it is the CJB that appears to go off course. The tou and its case are consistently treated as the Son of God elsewhere, and the CJB concurs with that translation in other cases, so it’s not clear to me why they felt it should be dealt with differently on this occasion. So, we can take what Jesus says as actually reinforcing the point that they are trying to hold against Him. But, He adds to the mix that the Father sanctified Him, and specifically commissioned Him to come into the world. Who else should He be but the Son of God?
From previous studies, I recognize that the idea of son is more than a claim to parental lineage and can be used in ways that have no connection with parentage at all. Key to the meaning of the term is the idea of sharing prominent characteristics with that of which one is a son, or being strongly connected with it. In this sense, what one is a son of may not be a person. It may be a place or type of place. It may be a thing or an idea. One can be a son of the mountains, for instance, or a son of war. The Hebrew ben, used in Psalm 82, is likewise able to take such meanings. With that in mind, it should be pretty clear that the Psalmist is not suggesting that the people of Israel nor even her leaders are literally sons of the Most High. As this thought is parallel to the part Jesus has quoted, we can expect that this was not intended as a literal statement either. It is a declaration that in their exercising of authority to judge, they are expected to display the character of God, to share in His character.
What Jesus says in this passage is that He clearly demonstrates the character of God. First off, He was sanctified by the Father. The Father separated Him out from the profane. He has set Jesus apart as a man dedicated to God, set apart for God’s use exclusively. That which is profane any can make use of, but what is sanctified and set apart is no longer available for anybody’s use but God’s. That Jesus is making this point in what He says is made clear by His appeal to the works He has done. “If My actions belie My claims then don’t believe Me.” If I do not demonstrate in every moment that I AM God’s Son by doing the works of My Father, then don’t believe Me. If I am inconsistent, don’t believe Me.
This is of a piece with what the Psalmist was relaying in regards to the judges God judged. They were appointed to do God’s work in God’s way. They were to represent Him and to do so faithfully and accurately. But they did not do so. That is why we find God standing amidst His people to judge. Were they doing as they ought, there would be no call for Him to do as He is doing. But, they did not and so He must. That is the sum-total significance to be had in “I said, you are gods.” We might be less inclined to overstate the case had He declared, “I said, you are ambassadors.” The meaning for us is much the same, but the tendency to make too much of ourselves upon hearing it would be greatly reduced.
Finally, Jesus, having made the appeal to the fact that His works confirm His statements, requests a more equitable hearing from His listeners. “If you can’t believe My words, believe the works.” If you don’t believe your ears, trust your eyes. They are telling you the same thing. If you will pay attention to the evidence, you will find that the works and the words are in full accord. There is not discrepancy. Therefore, if you would at least give a fair hearing to the works, you would know and believe what I have been telling you (v38).
To know and believe: There is apparently a question as to the second word translated there. Some manuscripts indicate a form of ginosko and others of pistos. The NASB has opted for the former, coming up with ‘to know and understand.’ But, this would have Jesus speaking two variations of the same basic word. It would be as if we said ‘to know and to know.’ It’s not out of the question, I suppose. I could think of phrasings such as, ‘know, and know well’, which might fit the occasion. But, the question really isn’t one of knowing. It’s about believing, about faith.
When I read it with the second term indicating belief rather than understanding, the message seems a bit more concise. Believe the works, that you might know by your own experience (for you have witnessed these things yourselves) and be persuaded of, convinced by the argument of your own knowledge, convicted as to the Truth of what your own senses have been informing you about: that the Father is in me and I in the Father. If you will but consider the whole picture of this ministry, you will find cause to be confident of its validity.
Now, I must admit this puts me in a bit of a quandary, for I often find myself in a setting where there is a ministry that can lay claim to very impressive works, perhaps even miraculous works (although these are much harder to verify), and yet the message they bring seems to be clearly at odds with the Gospel we have received once for all. It is just these sorts, for example, who will wrest that “I said you are god” quote from its proper setting and tell you that you are a god, and so, you should be expecting, demanding even, that miracles occur at your behest. Oh, they are so excited to turn your belief system on its head! They say this as though this ought to be the chief goal of the preacher, the evangelist, the true agent of God.
So, when I find Jesus making this appeal to His works as proof of His words being true, I have to stop. I have to check whether I have allowed my own natural skepticism to cloud my judgment, or whether I am truly pursuing the path of faith by discerning the word in exclusion of any claimed works.
One thing I must be certain about: Teaching unaccompanied by works is unworthy of faith. The full counsel of Scripture requires that I understand this point. Where true faith is to be found, works will follow. The key here is that they follow. They do not precede. They do not earn faith’s recompense. They are but the natural outworking of inward faith. So, clearly a lack of godly works constitutes an evidence that faith is lacking. But, are works necessarily evidence of real faith? That is the question for me.
I encounter any number of ministries whose messages are suspect. There are bits of truth in the teachings presented by these folks, yet those bits are wrapped in layer upon layer of poor exegetical practice, dubious theological conceptions, and outright misrepresentations of God’s interests. Yet, these ministries will echo the appeal that Jesus makes here: Believe the works. Look! We’re feeding the poor. Look! We have an orphanage. Clearly we are doing the Lord’s work, and therefore we must be of the Lord. Yet, could I not look at the food stamps program, or other aspects of welfare and make similar claims? These are likewise feeding the poor and housing the homeless. If this is the measure of the ministry, then ought I not to count every social worker as a devout believer, and accept whatever teaching they offer me?
Of course, we realize this is not the case. Works are not enough in and of themselves. So, why is Jesus making an appeal to works here? We have some other passages available that might help us to understand the limits of that evidence. Just prior to this, Jesus had said, “the works that I do in My Father’s name bear witness of Me” (Jn 10:25). In other words, those works He does by Father’s authority, at His behest. This is a critical matter to understand. “Unless the Lord builds the house, the labor is in vain” ( Ps 127:1). Unless God has commissioned the work, the work is of no value, however good it may look. Had David gone forward with his plan to build the Temple, it would have been to no avail. He was not commissioned by God for that work. His work had been in securing the kingdom, and his work would include preparing the financing and materiel for that project. But, the project itself was reserved to another to complete.
The ark of the covenant was intended to be brought to Jerusalem. But, when David sought to do so in a fashion that was not authorized by Father, David failed utterly. Even one who showed deepest concern for the wellbeing of that ark was slain because he did not show due reverence for the God represented by the ark. He acted in a fashion that suggested he knew better than God how to care for this object. God proved him wrong.
This lays out a model by which we must take the measure of works. It’s not the work that determines the worth. It’s the authority. It’s the obedience shown to the Father in those works. The right work done without authorization is wrong. The good deed done without the will of the Father is not good. Notice the condition Jesus has set forth in His defense. “I showed you many good works from the Father” (verse 32). If He had just shown many good works and left it at that, it should have no value. That is a waving of fleshly credentials. That’s the whole Pharisaic approach all over again. Look at how well I am doing. See how careful I am of the Law! Look at me! Dress it however you like, but the end result is the same: it’s all about me.
Jesus, in that statement, deflects the focus from Himself in a way that manages to steer clear of pride disguised in false humility. It’s true humility. I showed you, but the works are from the Father. I showed. He did.
Another passage that is very helpful in understanding the place of works is Jn 14:10, where again Jesus makes an appeal to the works. But what works? “The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.” The words I say are His works being done in Me! That’s a powerful thing! It’s not speaking in tongues. It’s speaking under the unbridled guidance of the Most High. It’s the power of prophecy at its utmost. This is not feel good prophecy. This is not telling people there’s hope without stopping to explain why they need hope. This is truly submitting the totality of one’s being to God’s purpose. It is so here every bit as much as it was in the Garden when Jesus proclaimed, “Nevertheless, Your will.”
What I see, then, in these appeals is that Jesus is laying out a case for faith. What He has been teaching is indeed hard to accept. That Messiah is not just a hero sent into Israel, but the very Son of the Living God is hard to accept. That the God Who precludes all thought of human sacrifice sends this Son as the fulfillment of the system of sacrifices He instituted is beyond hard to accept. It is impossible!
But, He says, look at what has been happening. Look at what this ministry has been about. Word and deed are in total accord one with another. The message may be difficult, even distressing, to accept, but look at the works. Perhaps, looking at the more acceptable evidence of what has been happening, you can come to faith in the more difficult matter of the words. For, the words are works even as the miracles are works. They are of one accord. They are in harmony one with another. You don’t find a need to choose which evidence you will accept, your ears or your eyes. If you truly consider the evidence, your eyes and ears will make plain to you that they are two witnesses to the same truth.
If this is not the way of it, then the works have no value as evidence at all. Works that are not the outflow of words are of no value. Words that have no outflow of works are of no value. But, faith requires evidence. We don’t think so, only because we have been conditioned to think of faith being blind, a leap in the dark. But, it’s not! Faith, as the very word explains, is a matter of being convinced by the arguments, by the evidence. But, works can never be the whole of the evidence.
We cannot allow the evidence of works to convince us to accept as doctrine what is utterly at odds with the Gospel delivered once for all to the saints. I don’t care how many miracles transpire in the service. If the message is all about how we are supposed to be raised up as gods ourselves, something’s very wrong. If the message is all prosperity all the time, something’s very wrong. If the focus is all on the material, the physical, the present, then the ministry is false, no matter what signs they have to show for themselves.
Look how seriously this is taken! “Even were an angel from heaven to come preaching something contrary to what has been preached, let him be accursed! I’ve said it before and I say it again: If any man is preaching a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8-9). Or, take this point: “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, so it’s not surprising that his servants are similarly disguised as servants of righteousness” (2Co 11:14-15). One comes who is in accord with Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, the deception of wickedness for those who did not receive a love of the truth so as to be saved (2Th 2:9-10).
The clear message is that signs are not enough. Signs can be counterfeited. We are not sufficiently wise to discern between false sign and real. The testimony that counts is the testimony of the Spirit, the testimony of the Word. The true test is that which Paul has set forth: the measure of the Gospel. If they preach what concurs with the Gospel revealed in Scripture, well and good, and we can expect the works to match the words. Indeed, we ought to insist that the works match the words, else that faith being proclaimed is a dead thing. If, on the other hand, their words are false, then no amount of works can make it right.
Lord, I pray you give us eyes that are not easily dazzled by appearances. I pray you give us ears that are not deaf to the Truth, but are discerning of Your Truth. I pray, Lord, that if I am come to the wrong conclusion in this, You would reveal that to me. If, indeed, I am succumbing to a natural skepticism rather than adhering to Your truth, then I trust You to correct this failure in my judgment. If, however, I am right in what I see from your word, then Lord, grant me the integrity to follow where that Truth leads. If this is the case, Lord, then, let me cease from making excuses for bad teaching, and stand up unashamed for the unvarnished truth of Your Word.
