I Said You Are God - Ps 82.6 and John 10 - Jerome Neyrey

8/16/2019 I Said You Are God - Ps 82.6 and John 10 - Jerome Neyrey

1/18

JBL 108/4 (7989) 647663

'Ί SAID: YOU ARE GODS":PSALM 82:6 AND JOHN 10

JEROME H. NEYREY, S.J.

Weston School of Theology, Cambodge, MA 02138

Biblical texts that called mortals "gods" attracted attention from com-

mentators and became the focus of ingenious interpretations and exegeticalprinciples.

1 This is certainly true of Ps 82:6, "I said: Tou are Gods'" The pres-

ent study examines the use of Ps 82:6 in John 10:3436. It is my hypothesis

that the Fourth Gospel understands Psalm 82 very much the way it was

understood in Jewish midrash, for which it might be the earliest extant

example. An examination of the understanding and function of Ps 82:6 in

John 10.3436 will necessarily entail a survey of Jewish interpretations of

that Psalm to put the Johannine passage in its proper perspective

I. Status Questionis

In the 1960s, a debate emerged over the interpretation of Ps 82:67 in

relation to John 10:3436, the general lines of which were summarized by

Anthony Hanson.2 He called attention to four different ways in which Psalm

82 was understood in Jewish traditions, with reference to (a) angels, (b) Mel

chizedek, (c) judges, and (d) Israel at Sinai. All four interpretations areattested to in midrashic literature, but which one relates to John 10:3436?

Angeh. In an early study on Psalm 82, J. A. Emerton3 argued that in the

targum to the Psalms,4 Qumran,

5 the Peshitta, and the Fathers, *ëlohîm in

Psalm 82 was understood to refer to "angels." Emerton suggests that *ëlohîm

refers to superhuman beings to whom the nations were allotted (e.g., Deut

1 For example, Exod 71, where God says to Moses, "I make you as god to Pharaoh" This

caused no little difficulty to Philo, as he wrestled with its interpretation in Leg All 140, Sac9, Det 39-40, 161-62, Migr 84, 169, Mut 19-20, 125, 128-29, Somn 2189, Quod Omn 43-44,

l P 43 44 d Vii M 1158


2/18

648 Journal of Biblical Literature

4:19; Daniel 10), whom the Jews regarded as angels but whom the Gentiles

called gods (see 1 Cor 10:20).

Melchizedek. In llQMelch, Psalm 82 was cited apropos of Melchizedek.The modern editor of llQMelch described the document as an "eschato-

logical midrash" which cast Melchizedek in the role of judge.6 Emerton, who

had argued that the "gods" mentioned in Psalm 82 were "angels," now saw the

Melchizedek = Elohim reference in llQMelch strengthening his earlier

interpretation of Psalm 82; he suggested that Melchizedek was being iden

tified with the archangel Michael.7 Hanson conceded that Melchizedek

might be called "god," but rejected its relevance for John 10.

8

Judges. Psalm 82 has also been interpreted in Jewish tradition to referto the judges of Israel, evidence for which comes from b. Ber. 6a and Midr. Ps. 82.9 This interpretation of the psalm enjoyed considerable popularityduring a certain period of Johannine scholarship.10 Returning to the issue of

Melchizedek in llQMelch, Joseph Fitzmyer,11 who basically agreed with van

der Woudes original interpretation of the passage, paraphrased line 10 of this

fragment as follows: '°Elohim (Melchizedek) has taken his stand in the

assembly of El (Yahweh), in the midst of gods (angelic court) he gives judgment."12 He understands Melchizedek's role in that text not as an angel but

as a judge.13

Israel at Sinai. As far back as Billerbeck,14 it was argued that Ps 82:6-7was historicized in Jewish traditions to refer to Israel at Sinai when God gave

it the Torah, making it holy and so deathless. This midrash, which has

become a popular understanding of the use of Ps 82:6-7 in John 10:34-36,15

implies that Israel experienced a new creation at Sinai. Because God gave

6 The original study was by A. S. van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische Erlöser

gestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI," in Oud- testamentliche Studien XIV (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 354-73; see also Marinus de Jonge and A. S.van der Woude, "llQMelchizedek and the New Testament;' NTS 12 (1965-66) 304.

7 J. A. Emerton, "Melchizedek and the Gods: Fresh Evidence for the Jewish Background

of John X.34-36,"/rS 17 (1966) 400-401.8 Hanson, "John s Citation of Psalm LXXXII Reconsidered," 366.9

See W. G. Braude, The Midrash on the Psalms (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959)2. 59-60.10 For example B F Westcott The Gospel According to St John (London: John Murray 1908


3/18

Neyrey: "I Said You Are Gods" 649

Israel the word of Torah, to which it became obedient, Israel became death

less once more as it resumed the "image and likeness of God" given it at crea

tion. James Ackerman, the chief proponent of this argument, suggested thatthe Johannine Prologue bears striking resemblances to the "Sinai myth,"

indicating how Wisdom once dwelt on earth with humankind (Ps 82:6), thus

making them immortal; but because Wisdom was rejected and returned to

heaven, sinful mortals now die (Ps 82:7).16

As regards these interpretations and John 10, Hanson rejected the tradi

tions that interpret "god" as either angels or judges.17 He correctly concluded

that only the last interpretation of Psalm 82 (Israel at Sinai) has any bearing

on the argument in John 10.18 All of the studies cited above, however, aredeficient for several reasons. First, they tend to argue for an extrinsic inter

pretation of Psalm 82 in John 10: if Jews in their scriptures or tradition can

call a man "god," then Jesus is not totally out of line in being called a divine

figure.19 This type of extrinsic argument shows little respect for the midrashic

understanding of Psalm 82 or other texts from scripture about the justifica

tion in the first place for calling any human "god," even by extension. Are

there intrinsic reasons in the midrash on Psalm 82 which give warrant to such

a predication? Second, those who treat the background of Psalm 82, even in

passing, do not present an adequate exegesis of the argument in John 10 to

see on what grounds Jesus is acclaimed "equal to God" (10:30, 33) and what

Psalm 82 has to do with that argument. There are some commentators who

deny that Psalm 82 in any way responds to the charges.20 There is, then, much

work left to be done. We turn now to a more detailed exegesis of John 10 to

see what is being argued, so that we might assess more clearly the meaning

and function of Psalm 82 in relation to that argument.

II. The Argument in John 10:28-37

Unless Psalm 82 is used in a purely extrinsic manner21 in John 10:34-36,

then we must investigate how it functions as an apology to a specific charge

in the forensic dynamics of John 10. The starting place is 10:30, where Jesus

claims "I and the Father are one (or equal)." The crowds correctly interpret

16 See James Ackerman, "The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John,"


4/18


this to mean that Jesus in some way claims "equality with God." His claim

leads them to a judgment, "blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God"(10:33). Several questions arise: In what respect are Jesus and God

"one" (or equal)? Is it true that Jesus "makes himself" God? This means that

we must examine both the earlier part of John 10 to see in what sense Jesus

and God are "equal" and the subsequent apology in 10:34-38 to see how

Psalm 82 relates to the claims of equality.

The First Forensic Proceeding fl0:l-28a)

After Jesus claimed to be the door and the shepherd (10:1-16), the

Gospel describes confusion in the crowd about these claims: Is he a demon

or a saint (10:19-21)? So intense is this popular confusion that a formal

forensic process is begun in 10:22-27 about Jesus' claims. Since the crowd,

who is an uneducated l am hä-'äres (7:47-49), could not possibly decidethese claims, a solemn assembly gathers "in the temple, in the stoa of

Solomon" (10:23). There it puts a formal question to Jesus: "Tell us plainly,

if you are the Messiah?" (10:24). Thus, 10:l-28a can be seen as a forensic proceeding22 which formally examines Jesus' claims:

Claim: Jesus is the Door, Good Shepherd (10:1-16)

Judgment: Tell us plainly if you are the Christ? (10:24)

Apology: Defense of Jesus as Shepherd (10:25-27)

Jesus' defense of his claim contains no new material which proves its

truth, but is itself a judgment on his judges,23 an actual demonstration of how

his claims work.

10:1-16 10:27-28a1. The (true) sheep hear 1. My sheep hear

his voice (10:3b) my voice (10:27a)2. 1 know my own 2. / know them (10:27b)

and my own know me (10:14)

3. The sheep follow him, for 3. And they follow methey know his voice (10:4) (10:27c)


5/18


6/18


would never mean that mortals had become "god," as Jesus* remark is under-

stood in 10:3133. The very argument in John, then, understands hen to mean

more than moral unity, that is, "equality with God." By way of confirmation,1 Cor 3:7 indicates that hen can mean "equality."

27 In virtue of the com-

parison noted above, Jesus claims equality with God, who is "greater than all,"

because there is "no snatching out of their hands." To what does this refer?

In the context of 10:28, Jesus claims both the power to give eternal life

so that his sheep do not perish and the power to guard them from being

snatched. "Being snatched," then, has to do with life and death, such that

Death28

has no ultimate power over Jesus' sheep. Conversely, this implies that

Jesus has such power from God so that he is the one who gives eternal lifeand rescues the dead from the snares of Death (see John 5:25, 2829; 6:39,

44, 54; 8:51; 11:25). Since God alone holds the keys of life and death, Jesus

claims an extraordinary power which belongs exclusively to God.29

There is

substance, then, to the claim that Jesus and the Father are "equal" (10:30).

I have shown at great length that the Fourth Gospel clearly and formally

argues that Jesus is "equal to God" (5:18; 10:33) because God has given him

full eschatological power (5:2129).30

God gave him power (1) to give eternal

life (5:21; 10:28), (2) to judge (5:22, 27; 8:2130), (3) to be honored as

Lawmaker and Judge (5:23), (4) to have life in himself (5:26; 10:1718), and

(5) to raise the dead and judge them (5:2829). In fact, 5:2129, a summary

of Jesus' eschatological power, functions as a topic statement which the

Gospel subsequently develops in chaps. 8, 10, and ll.31

The claims in

10:2830, then, continue the exposition of Jesus' full eschatological power.

Our exegesis of 10:2230 yields the following information. A second

forensic process begins in 10:2830. Jesus is formally on trial, not just con-cerning whether he is "the Christ" (10:2324), but especially about his claim

to be "equal to God" (10:30, 33). The chief issue that is contested, moreover,

concerns ultimate power over death, whereby Jesus is equal to God.

Claim: "I and the Father are one.'" (10:30, 33), i.e., power over

death (10:2830):

2 7 See J. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St John(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926) 366; and Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (London:


7/18

Neyrey: "I Said You Are Gods' 653

(a) "I give them eternal life*

(b) "they do not perìsh forever"

(c) "no one snatches them out of my hand" Judgment: "Blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself

equal to God" (10:33)

Apology: Use of Ps 82:6 (10:34-36):

their judgment is false, because God makes Jesus to be

"Son of God"

Our focus necessarily turns to the apology in 10:34-36. How does the

Fourth Gospel understand and use Psalm 82, and does this usage have anyrelationship to the claims made in 10:28-30? As we begin, let us pay special

attention to the form of the charge in 10:33. Jesus is accused of "making

himself" equal to God, a charge that dominates the many forensic pro

ceedings against him:

5:18 " . . . making himself God"

10:33 "you, a man, make yourself God"

19:7 "he made himself the son of God"19:12 "who makes himself king . . ,"32

The evangelist distinguishes two elements of the judgment against Jesus:

(1) Does Jesus make himself God or equal to God? (2) In what sense is Jesus

equal to God or "god"? The distinction is important, for the Johannine Gospel

denies the former half, that is, that Jesus makes himself anything, but care

fully explains and defends the assertion of his equality with God.33

Psalm 82 as Apologetic Response

In response to the charge of blasphemy, Jesus advances an argument

from scripture using Psalm 82. When he cites Ps 82:6 in 10:34, he establishes

the mode of argument by comparing two things: if scripture was not in error

calling mortals "gods" (Ps 82:6), then neither is there error in calling the one

whom God consecrated and sent into the world "the Son of God" (10:35-36).

Jesus' reference to "Son of God" in 10:36 does not weaken the argumentby reducing the claim from "god" to "son of God," because if one continues


8/18


the consecrated "Son of God," he does not claim less than what is claimed

by being "god" according to Ps 82:6. On the contrary, he claims more.

Yet how does the Fourth Gospel understand Ps 82:6? One stream ofcritical opinion takes the citation extrinsically, on a literal level as a mere play

on words. If mortals, for whatever reason, can truly be called "gods" according

to scripture, then the term is not a priori preposterously applied to Jesus.This type of explanation does not ask under what circumstances mortals

might be called "gods," and it sees Jesus basically engaging in an evasive

maneuver.

Such reasoning, however, does not mesh with the Johannine perspective

for several reasons. The Fourth Gospel always criticizes people who takethings literally, either Jesus' word or the scriptures. Regularly we find a

pattern where Jesus makes a statement, which his hearers misunderstandbecause they take it on a literal level, which leads Jesus to issue a clarificationwhich exposes the spiritual or inner meaning of his words.35 It seems improb

able, then, that the Fourth Gospel is dealing superficially with Psalm 82, ask

ing readers to take its phrases and argument on a literal or extrinsic level.

This is all the more true since the Gospel constantly maintains that spiritual

vision is needed to see the inner meaning of texts from the scriptures which

Jesus fulfills (see John 2:17, 22; 6:31; 8:56, 58, etc.).

A literal reading of Psalm 82, moreover, seems inconsistent with the

more typical pattern of Johannine Christology. Wayne Meeks noted that

when something claimed about Jesus causes a reaction from the synagogue,

the Johannine community tends not to moderate its claim, but to rephrase

it in such a way as to cause even greater offense.36 Thus, if mortals may be

called "god," then Jesus, whom God consecrated and sent into the world, canbe called "Son of God," meaning "equal to God." A purely extrinsic reading

of Ps 82:6 in regard to John 10:34-36 hardly seems warranted.

How, then, does the Fourth Gospel understand and use Psalm 82? The

chief clue to a special reading of Ps 82:6 lies in 10:35, when we observe the

way the Gospel interprets Ps 82:6 as part of its argument: "If he called them

'gods' to whom the word of God came. . . ." Whoever, then, is called "god" isso named because "the word of God came" to them. Scholars have long

argued that this refers to Israel at Sinai when God gave it the Torah, whichI think is absolutely correct.37 Yet what is the shape of the midrash on this


9/18

Nevrev: "I Said You Are Gods' 655

and how might it apply to the Fourth Gospel?

B. F. Westcott, for example, argued that when the Fourth Gospel speaks

of "those to whom the word of God came," the evangelist refers to the pré

existent Word who regularly gave theophanies to Israel's patriarchs.38

Although the Fourth Gospel indeed develops an argument that Jesus is the

appearing deity of the OT,39 it is not apparent that an allusion is being made

to that tradition in John 10, nor is it clear how such an allusion really

advances the argument that Jesus is rightly called "god." The evangelist,

moreover, does not propose here the argument which was made in the

prologue, that the "Word came unto his own and his own received him not"(1:11).40 Israel is not being reproached here for rejecting once more God's

revelation to it.

III. Ps 82:6 in Jewish Midrash

The emphasis in John 10:35 is not on Jesus, the préexistent Word, but

on "those to whom the word of God came," who are called "gods." Who were

these people? Although it is not the only stream of interpretation of Ps 82:6-7in Jewish literature, there is a clear sense that Ps 82:6-7 was understood in

terms of Israel at the Sinai theophany. A second-century midrash goes as

follows:

If it were possible to do away with the Angel of Death I would. But thedecree has long ago been decreed R. Jose says· It was upon this conditionthat the Israelites stood up before Mount Sinai, on the condition that theAngel of Death should have not power over them. For it is said: '7 SAID:YE ARE GODS' (Ps 82-6). But you have corrupted your conduct. "SURELYYE SHALL DIE LIKE MEN' (Ps 82:7)41

Commentary: the occasion is Sinai ("Israel stood up before Mount Sinai"),

when God descended on the mountain to give the Torah. According to Exod

20:18-19, when the Israelites saw the mountain blazing with lightning and

heard the thundering, they said to Moses: "You speak to us, and we will hear;

but let not God speak to us, lest we die" In light of this, the Mekilta indicates

that God restrained the Angel of Death, so that Israel did not die. And sobecause Israel became deathless, that is, beyond the power of the Angel of


10/18


deathless But with the worship of the golden calf, Israel sinned, and sufferedonce more the penalty for sin, which is death "You shall die like men"

(Ps 82 7)An important variation of this midrash occurs in b *Abod Zar 5a The

context is a discussion of Deut 5 25-26 where Israel received the Sinai

revelation The author comments that they have seen God and yet still live

(recall the discussion of Exod 2018-19 above), "therefore," thev ask, "why

should we die?" This question becomes the occasion for comment about the

fluctuating power of the Angel of Death

R Jose said The Israelites accepted the Torah onlv so that the Angel ofDeath should have no dominion over them, as it is said "7 SAID YE AREGODS AND ALL OF YOU SONS OF THE MOST HIGH' (Ps 82 6) Nov% tvou have spoilt your deeds, ' YE SHALL DIE LIKE MORTALS" (Ps 82 7)

4

Commentary the occasion is Sinai, Israel is once again called god because

deathless But now we find the explicit note that being called god and being deathless are linked to the reception of Torah In fact, Israel chooses God'sTorah for the express purpose that the Angel of Death should not have power

over it Something else, then, is operative here which suggests that receivingGod's word (Torah) makes one holy, and if holv, then sinless, and if sinless,

then deathless

A third early midrash can help to clarify the basic lines of this interpreta

tion of Ps 82 6-7 The context is a reflection on Deut 32 20, "I will see what

their end will be," which is seen referring to a fickle, perfidious people

You stood at Mount Sinai and said "All that the Lord hath spoken will we

do, and obey" (Exod 24 7), (whereupon) "1 SAID YE ARE GODS" (Ps 82 6)but when you said to the (golden) calf, "This is thy god, O Israel" (Exod32 4), I said to you, "NEVERTHELESS, YE SHALL DIE LIKE MEN(Ps82 7)

43

Commentary at Sinai Israel received God's word of Torah ("all that the Lord

hath spoken") and became holy and sinless (" we will do and obey"), for

which reason they are called gods Although it is not explicitly stated here,this argument assumes that holiness leads to deathlessness, which is a godlikequality, for which reason Israel is called god Yet with Israel's new sin comesdeath, the typical fate of sinful mortals ("ye shall die like men")


11/18

Neyrey: "I Said You Are Gods' 657

Yet this type of argument presumes some biblical understanding of

death and deathlessness as well as of the nature of humanity and God. In

short, the link between obedienceholinessdeathlessness lies back in theGenesis exposition of Adam in God's "image and likeness,"

44 an implicit

scenario made explicit in the following midrash. The segment is somewhat

long, but because of its importance and the complicated argument in it, it

deserves to be cited as fully as possible.

R. Eleazar b. R. Jose the Galilean remarked: The Angel of Death com-

plained to the Holy One, blessed be He: Ί have then been created in the

world to no purpose!' The Holy One, blessed be He, replied: Ί have created

you in order that you shall destroy idolworshippers, but not this people,

for you have no jurisdiction over them.' That they should live and endure

for ever; as it says, "But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive

every one of you" (Deut 4:4). In the same strain it says, "The writing was

the writing of God, graven (haruth) upon the tables" (Exod 32:16). What

is the signification of "haruth"? R. Judah says: Freedom (heruth) from

foreign governments; R. Nehemiah says: From the Angel of Death; and

Rabbi says: From suffering. See then the plan the Holy One, blessed be He,

had made for them! Yet forthwith they frustrated the plan after forty days.

Accordingly it says, "But ye have set at nought all my counsel" (Prov 1:25).The Holy one, blessed be He, said to them: Ί thought you would not sin

and would live and endure for ever like Me; even as I live and endure for

ever and to all eternity; J SAID: YE ARE GODS, AND ALL OF YOU SONS

OF THE MOST HIGH (Ps 82:6), like the ministering angels, who are

immortal. Yet after all this greatness, you wanted to die! INDEED, YE

SHALL DIE LIKE MEN (Ps 82:7)Adam, i.e. like Adam whom I charged

with one commandment which he was to perform and live and endure for

ever'; as it says, "Behold the man was as one of us" (Gen 3:22). Similarly,

"And God created man in His own image" (Gen 1:27), that is to say, that

he should live and endure like Himself. Yet [says God] he corrupted his

deeds and nullified My decree. For he ate of the tree, and I said to him:

"For dust thou art" (Gen 3:19). So also in your case, "J SAID: YE AREGODS" but you have ruined yourselves like Adam, and so "INDEED, YE

SHALL DIE like Adam." (Num. Rah. 16.24)45

The typical features of the midrashic understanding of Ps 82:67 are

clearly evident: (a) Sinai and the giving of the Torah, (b) Israel's obedience

("cleaving unto the Lord"), (c) deathlessness or immortality ("freedom fromthe Angel of Death" . . . "live and endure for ever like Me"), and hence


12/18


Genesis 13, for it points out that God created Adam "in His image and

likeness," that is, deathless. Adam was deathless because holy and obedient

("I charged with one commandment which he was to perform and live andendure for ever"). Adam died precisely because he sinned and lost God's holi-

ness and "image." This midrash also makes clear that interpreters of Ps 82:67

saw Sinai as a new creation, when the obedience, holiness, and deathlessness

of Adam were restored to Israel, thus linking the Adam myth with the Sinai

myth, as the following diagram suggests.

Adam in Paradise Israel at Sinai

1. created in holiness 1. reconstituted in holiness2. and so deathless 2. and so deathless,

3. yet sinned (ate fruit) 3. yet sinned (worshiped calf)

4. and so died, 4. and so died.

The midrashim we are examining all presume a complex yet traditional

explanation of the source of death. Good biblical doctrine states that God

created Adam in a state of holiness. He was, moreover, created in God's

"image and likeness," which Wisdom 2:23 explains as a state of deathlessness:46

God made man for incorruption

and made him in the image of his own eternity.

Deathlessness (or "eternity") was conditioned upon holiness. God said, "On

the day you eat it you shall die" (Gen 2:17; 3:3). The tempter deceived Eve

that if she broke God's commandment "You shall not die" (Gen 3:5), which

was a lie; for of the sinful Adam God said, "You are dust and to dust you shall

return" (Gen 3:19). Although we have surveyed only four instances of the midrashic under-

standing of Psalm 82, many more can be found in Jewish literature. Yet as we

investigate those other citations of Psalm 82, they only confirm what has just

been shown. In general, it can be stated that when Psalm 82 is cited in Jewish

midrash, writers generally understand that Israel is called god because of its

holiness and/or its deathlessness.47

Evidently some midrashim contain a fully developed exposition of the

Psalm, while others have but fragments of an explanation. Yet even theearliest midrash cited above, the Mekilta, implies as much as it states, prob-


13/18

Neyrey: 'Ί Said You Are Gods' 659

much is implied as is visible. With this survey of niidrashic interpretation of

Ps 82:6 in mind, we return to John 10:3436. Does the Fourth Gospel inter-

pret Psalm 82 in a midrashic manner, and, if so, how much of the midrashdoes it know and use?

IV. Midrash in John 10:3436

If the Fourth Gospel understands Psalm 82 in a midrashic manner, we

would want to see where John 10:3436 stands in regard to three issues

which regularly arise in the midrashim. First, the historical occasion of Psalm

82 is regularly seen to be Israel's reception of God's word at Sinai. Second,the midrash on Psalm 82 does not call Israel gods for purely extrinsic reasons,

but links godlikeness with deathlessness and/or holiness. Finally, even the

simple midrash assumes some biblical notion of death and deathlessness,

which implies an understanding of Genesis 13 or some popular myth of the

origin of death in the world. With these points in mind let us return to

John 10.

As we noted above, the Fourth Gospel seems to understand Psalm 82 in

a midrashic sense as referring to Israel at Sinai. For the evangelist interprets

the content of "I said, Tou are gods'" apropos of "those to whom the word

of God came" (10:3435). People, then, are not called god gratuitously, for

there is intrinsic content to the predication. The Fourth Gospel does not

explicitly state that "gods .. . those to whom the word of God came" refers to

Israel's deathlessness, but only to its holiness in virtue of an obedient hearing

of Torah. Although deathlessness is not explicitly mentioned in 10:34, I

would argue that it is assumed in the link between holiness and godlikeness. After all, it is not the mere physical hearing of the Word of God, but hearing

in faith and obedience which constitutes holiness. Such is the hearing that

is celebrated in John 5:24; 8:37; 9:27. This Gospel clearly sees an intrinsic

link between hearing in faith and passing to eternal life. Nevertheless, John

10:3436 does not explicitly link godlikeness with deathlessness, but only

with holiness.

The focus on holiness, moreover, continues in the application of Ps 82:6

to Jesus in 10:36. If Israel, who became holy, may be called god, then it isnot blasphemy if Jesus, whom God consecrated and sent as his apostle into


14/18


In the face of these accusations, the Fourth Gospel denies any sin on

Jesus' part. John 10:36 represents but the most recent evidence of this

defense, as it proclaims that God consecrated Jesus. After all, God's judgment

of Jesus must surely have greater weight than that of his peers (see 5:3146). We have, moreover, heard of God's evaluation of Jesus elsewhere, that "The

Father loves the Son" (3:35; 5:30). Sinners, of course, find no place in God's

presence, yet Jesus was "face to face" with God (1:12) and in God's "bosom"

(1:18). And Jesus will return to God's presence at the completion of his

mission (13:3; 17:5, 24). God, then, judges Jesus to be sinless and worthy to

stand in the divine presence.

Nor could anyone convict Jesus of sin (8:46). His working on the sabbath

constituted no breach of God's law, but must be perceived precisely as obe-

dience to God's will (5:31; 7:2123). In fact, Jesus' very ability to open the eyes

of the blind testifies to his closeness to God (9:3133). Jesus' holiness (6:69)

and his consecration (10:36) attest to his preeminent sinlessness or holiness.

Divine consecration of Jesus, moreover, suggests a picture of him as one

totally set aside for God's purposes48

and completely obedient to God's will.

This radical image of commissioning evoked for Rudolf Schnackenburg the

sense of a person sealed with the Holy Spirit,

49

a comment that makes usrecall the testimony of the Baptizer in 1:3031. John testified that he saw

God's Spirit not only descend on Jesus but "remain on him" (1:3233), which

suggests that divine power and holiness were no passing phenomenon for

Jesus. Because of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit on Jesus, John testifies that

he is "the Son of God" (1:34), a figure whose task was to purify others with

the Spirit which remained in him (1:33). Jesus, then, is no sinner, but God's

Holy One.

Thus far we have noted that 10:3435 understands Ps 82:6 to mean thatobedience to God's word leads to holiness and godlikeness. As we saw with

the midrashim, this interpretation presumes some notion of deathlessness

linked with holiness. Yet it is important to pay attention to where and how

Ps 82:6 functions in the forensic structure of 10:2836. The Fourth Gospel

uses Psalm 82 as a refutation of part of the charge. Jesus' judges judged

wrongly when they accused him of making himself god or equal to God,

because God Himself makes Jesus Son of God, just as God made Israel "god"

by delivering the Torah to it. At a minimum, then, Jesus refutes the essence

of the charge by maintaining that God makes him what he is namely a con-


15/18

Neyrey: "1 Said You Are Gods' 661

refutes the charge that Jesus makes himself "Son of God," even as it affirmshis radical holiness against the charge of blasphemy. But if it confounds his

accusers (10:31-33), does it explain or support the claims made in 10:28-30which precipitated the forensic controversy in the first place?

We claimed above that Jesus is "equal to God" because of his "power over

death." In regard to this, Ps 82:6 does not seem to play a significant part.

Claim: Equal to God: power over death (10:28-30) Judgment: Blasphemy, you a man, make yourself a god (10:33) Apology: Charge refuted: it is God who makes Jesus "Son of God"

because of his holiness (Ps 82:6//John 10:34-36)Ps 82:6, then, functions in a limited way; it proves the judges' judgment is

false, but it hardly pertains to the substance of Jesus' claims in 10:28-30.

Psalm 82, moreover, would not be a satisfactory explanation for Jesus' "equal

ity with God" according to the Fourth Gospel. Even when made deathless,

Israel always remained less than God, merely mortal; the Angel of Death

might still have power over them. Of Jesus, however, this Gospel claims that

he is no mere mortal, but a divine figure. He has power over the Angel of

Death, not vice versa. Ps 82:6 may function to prove the judges' judgment

wrong (he does not "make himself anything; God makes him "Son of God"),but it is not exploited as an adequate explanation for the Johannine assertion

that Jesus has power over death (10:28-30). Ps 82:6 functions only to prove

that the judges' judgment is false.

What then of the forensic claims themselves? Jesus and God are "equal"

in terms of power over death. Yet is Jesus himself deathless? Whence comes

his power over death? Friend and foe both know that he died on the cross.Friends proclaim that his death was God's will and plan (Acts 2:23; 4:28) and

that he was fully obedient to God, even unto death (Phil 2:8; Mark 14:35-36).

The Fourth Gospel, moreover, proclaims a more remarkable thing about

God's involvement in Jesus' death. In 10:17-18 Jesus asserts that God loves

him precisely because he dies: "For this reason the Father loves me, that I

lay down my life, that I may take it again" (10:17). Death is usually a sign of

God's wrath, not love. Jesus' death, then, is clearly not the result of sin, as

the midrash on Ps 82:7 argues. Nor is Jesus the helpless victim whose life istaken from him, either by men or the Angel of Death. For, as he declares,


16/18


power to the full, one aspect of which is to "give life" to others (5:21; 10:28)

and to "raise the dead" (5:25, 28-29; 11:25). Yet Jesus has power over his own

death, to lay down his life and to take it back (10:17-18); this power wasreceived when God gave him to "have life in himself (5:26), just as God has

life in Himself. And so Jesus is proclaimed deathless in a special way:although he dies, he has complete power over death, his own and that of his

followers. He raises himself from death to life and he raises his followers from

death as well.

Ps 82:6 in the midrashim explains deathlessness, but in a way that is not

adequate to the claims made in the Fourth Gospel about Jesus' power over

death. For this reason, I suggest, the evangelist did not employ the fullmidrashic understanding of Psalm 82 which was available to him.

IV. Conclusions and Further Questions

In summary, John 10:34-36 can be said to understand Ps 82:6 and use

it in specific ways. (1) According to 10:34-35, Ps 82:6 ("I said, 'You are gods'")

is understood to refer to Israel at Sinai when it received the Torah ("to whom

the word of God came," 10:35). (2) Implied in this understanding is theintimate link between holiness :: deathlessness :: godlikeness. The Fourth

Gospel cites only an abbreviated form of this, holiness :: godlikeness. (3) Ps

82:6b ("sons of the Most High") is cited by Jesus when he calls himself "Son

of God" (10:36), and it refers to his godlikeness in terms of holiness (see "con

secrated and sent"). (4) Ps 82:6 does not touch the substance of the claims

made in 10:28-30 which precipitated the forensic process in 10:31-39. It

functions as an adequate refutation of the erroneous judgment of Jesus'

judges, who charged that he, "a man, makes himself equal to God." This judgment is false because God makes him "Son of God." (5) According to theapology in 10:34-36, holiness is linked with godlikeness in ways that are

appropriate to human beings, first Adam, then Israel. Jesus would be a mere

human being even if acclaimed "god/Son of God," as was Israel. But the foren

sic argument in John 10 claims much more. No mere human being, Jesus is

a heavenly figure who is "equal to God." His equality rests not on holiness but

on divine powers intrinsic to him, that is, full eschatological power.

(6) Jesus' claims in regard to power over death always remain importantin John 10. In this Gospel, his deathlessness51 does not formally derive from


17/18

Nevrev: "1 Said You Are Gods' 663

sinlessness/holiness as in the case of the midrash on Ps 82:6, but from full

eschatological power which God gave him over death (5:21-29; 10:17-18). In

5:18 and 10:30, Jesus may be called 'equal to God" for a much greater reasonthan ever justified calling Israel god, namely, because of powers intrinsic to

him. Power over death is the specific content of "equal to God."

(7) If we are correct that Ps 82:6 is understood in 10:34-36 in line with

its basic midrashic interpretation, then the remark in 10:28-29 that "no one

shall snatch them out of my hand" probably echoes what the midrash dis

cusses in terms of the Angel of Death whose power over God's people was

restrained. The Angel of Death will not snatch Jesus' followers/sheep either

from his hand or God's hand. (8) Although the midrashim studied above werewritten considerably later than the Fourth Gospel, the understanding of Ps

82:6 in John 10:34-36 belongs in that same trajectory of interpretation. It

might be the earliest extant witness of that tradition, although not the most

complete example.

This study has not by any means exhausted the inquiry into John

10:31-39. But it does raise new questions. It focuses on the formal forensic

process which structures the narrative in 10:21-28a and 28b-39, highlighting

especially the claims made by Jesus. The use of Psalm 82 in 10:34-36 only

deflects the judges' false judgment; a full exposition of Jesus' claims in

10:28-30 and their adequate apology in 10:37-38 remains to be examined.

The relationship of 10:28b-30 to issues of Jesus' eschatological power in

5:21-29; 8:21-59; 11:1-41 remains to be considered.

The use of midrashic traditions is not confined to 10:34-36.52 Apprecia

tion of John's use not only of the scriptures but especially their midrashic

understanding will go a long way toward clarifying the context of the Johannine community. Finally, if there is substance to the argument about two

forensic processes narrated in 10:21-28a, 28b-39, this might provide further

clues to the historical development of the Johannine community. It would

stand as another piece of evidence for a development from a "low"

Christology ("Messiah") to "high" Christology ("equal to God").53

52 For example, concerning the Johannine use of midrashic traditions about Jacob, see J. H.

Neyrey, "Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4:10-26," CBQ 41 (1979) 419-37.53 See J. Louis Martyn, "Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community'* in his TheGospel of John in Christian History (New York: Paulist 1979) 90 121


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

I Said You Are God - Ps 82.6 and John 10 - Jerome Neyrey