The Self as Spirit (“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” John 10:34)

[Guest guest]

The Self as Spirit

 

Vedanta accepts this logical introduction to the enquiry into the

self. Self as subject should never be confused with any object.

Anything that the self observes cannot be self. Can anything positive

then be said of it? The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has a great deal to

say about the self. For example:

 

`This Self is nearer than all else, dearer than son, dearer than

wealth, dearer than anything. If a man call anything dearer than

Self, say that he will lose what is dear, of certainty he will lose

it; for Self is God. Therefore one should worship Self as Love. Who

worships Self his love shall never perish … This Self is the Lord of

all beings; as spokes are knit together in the hub, all things, all

gods, all men, all lives, are bodies, are knit together in that Self. "

 

(pp. 121, 135)

 

`He wanted every form, for He wanted to show Himself; as a magician

He appears in many forms, He masters hundreds of thousands of powers.

He is those powers; those millions of powers. He is Spirit; without

antecedent, without precedent, without inside, without outside;

omnipresent, omniscient. Self is Spirit. That is revelation.'

 

(p. 136)

 

The connection between these two passages lies in the assertion that

self is spirit. Self is dear, self is to be worshipped, self is love,

because it is spirit. What can be observed is material. Things in

space, including human bodies, are material, made of gross elements;

things in the mind are subtle, made of finer material and observable

as imagined objects or thoughts, feelings and emotions; but the

witness of them all, of all materiality, is of a different order. It

is spirit. To know that spirit is revelation. To know that spirit is

not to know an object; it is to realize that one is spirit.

 

Brian Hodgkinson, The Essence of Vedanta,

Arcturus Publishing Ltd., Canada, pg. 42-3

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and children of the most High?

Why do so many Christans think it's evil to believe we become like

God... that we eventually can become gods? But the Bible is littered

with the promise and surety that humans are inherently divine and of

the nature of spirit:

 

1.To become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, being glorified

together (Romans 8:14-18)

2. As sons (and daughters) of God, to inherit all things that the

Father has (Revelation 21:7)

3.To become one with Christ, as Christ is one with the Father (John

17:20-23)

4.To sit with Christ on His throne (Rev. 3:21)

5.To receive a glorified, immortal body like the body that Christ has

(Philip. 3:21)

6.To partake of the divine nature and be given all things pertaining

to life and godliness, receiving glory (2 Peter 1:3-4)

7.To be made - in some way - like Christ when He returns (1 John 3:2)

8.To be made kings and priests unto God and his Father (Rev. 1:6)

9. As spirit children of God, to become partakers of his holiness

(Heb. 12:9-10)

10.To be exalted by God (1 Peter 5:6)

11.To become perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt.

5:48)

 

In fact Jesus clearly states, when rejected by the Jews for claiming

Himself as the Son of God, that all humans are gods:

 

" Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are

gods? " John 10:34)

 

What is missed by Christians and Jews is that while Jesus only

claimed Himself to be the Son of God, the Jewish scriptures confirmed

that humans were indeed gods. So why should the Jews threaten Him for

being lesser i.e., just the Son? Jesus was in fact mocking both their

ignorance of scripture, and arrogance of righteousness and judgment:

 

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are

gods?

35 If he called them gods, 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?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye

may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him; but he escaped out of

their hand,

40 and went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at

first baptized; Joh. 1.28 and there he abode.

41 And many resorted unto him and said, John did no miracle: but all

things that John spake of this man were true.

42 And many believed on him there.

 

 

So what can we make out of Jesus' claim that " Ye are gods " ? What has

it got to do with second birth (Kundalini awakening)? What is their

relationship with Shri Mataji's Self-realization? What is the Self

actually, and how is it realized? To answer these questions i have

quoted Brian Hodgkinson:

 

The Self as Spirit

 

Vedanta accepts this logical introduction to the enquiry into the

self. Self as subject should never be confused with any object.

Anything that the self observes cannot be self. Can anything positive

then be said of it? The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has a great deal to

say about the self. For example:

 

`This Self is nearer than all else, dearer than son, dearer than

wealth, dearer than anything. If a man call anything dearer than

Self, say that he will lose what is dear, of certainty he will lose

it; for Self is God. Therefore one should worship Self as Love. Who

worships Self his love shall never perish … This Self is the Lord of

all beings; as spokes are knit together in the hub, all things, all

gods, all men, all lives, are bodies, are knit together in that Self. "

 

(pp. 121, 135)

 

`He wanted every form, for He wanted to show Himself; as a magician

He appears in many forms, He masters hundreds of thousands of powers.

He is those powers; those millions of powers. He is Spirit; without

antecedent, without precedent, without inside, without outside;

omnipresent, omniscient. Self is Spirit. That is revelation.'

 

(p. 136)

 

The connection between these two passages lies in the assertion that

self is spirit. Self is dear, self is to be worshipped, self is love,

because it is spirit. What can be observed is material. Things in

space, including human bodies, are material, made of gross elements;

things in the mind are subtle, made of finer material and observable

as imagined objects or thoughts, feelings and emotions; but the

witness of them all, of all materiality, is of a different order. It

is spirit. To know that spirit is revelation. To know that spirit is

not to know an object; it is to realize that one is spirit.

 

Brian Hodgkinson, The Essence of Vedanta,

Arcturus Publishing Ltd., Canada, pg. 42-3

 

 

All the Holy Scriptures - Torah, Bible, Qur'an, Upanishads, Vedas,

Puranas, Granth Sahib - uphold the Self as Spirit, the essence and

presence of the Divine in humans. That is why Jesus answered them in

the temple, " Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? " .

Self-realization is a slow process of confirming the same divinity

i.e., the Divine within humans. No external images, rituals or

contacts whatsoever are needed for this inner journey to realize and

meditate in the Kingdom of God within.

 

So why do many Christans think it's evil to believe we become like

God... that we eventually can become gods? That is definitely not the

case. Humans only realize the Divine - the Self as Spirit within.

They only realize their own divine nature i.e., the essence and

presence of the Divine within. That does not mean they become God

Almighty. Even Shri Mataji has said that Self-realization does not

mean you become gods. Christians (Jews and Muslims) are just ignorant

of the true teachings and deep, subtle esoteric truths of Jesus that,

when understood properly, is not self-deification. Realizing the

presence and essence of Self as Spirit/God/Divine within and

meditating on it is not self-deification. Asking others to meditate

on you is.

 

regards to all,

 

jagbir

[Guest guest]

, " jagbir

singh " <adishakti_org wrote:

 

" Why do so many Christians think it's evil to believe we become like God... that

we eventually can become gods? "

 

Dear Jagbir and All,

 

i can tell you why Christians think it's evil to even think they can 'become

like God'. It is because ministers have told them that Lucifer, the fallen

angel, aspired to become like God, and fell, becoming anti-God. Due to that

infamy, it has been drummed into Christians, never to assume to 'want to be

God-like' because that is an ambition that is too high for mere mortals.

Christians are warned by ministers never to go there, as they will be in mortal

danger of their soul, for if it was too high an ambition for the highest angel

of God (namely Lucifer)... it is definitely too high an ambition for mere

Christian mortals! The ministers say that it is all about the pride that leads

to a fall.

 

Of course, this whole scenario is as a result of an external shallow and crude

understanding of real spirituality, which can only be " gnostic " which means " to

go within " one's inner temple, which Christ also talked about. But most

ministers do not encourage the rank and file to " go within " and neither do they.

That is why they can never understand the " gnostic concept " that Christ referred

to, when He said: " You are gods " .

 

Add to that the fact that Christian Rulers (priestly and kingly) have taken away

the teaching of re-incarnation, which early Christians naturally believed, as

people did, in those days! How can a person become 'God-like' or 'like God' in

one incarnation. It might surprise you Jagbir, but Christians believe this is

their only lifetime. It is beyond any individual to become 'like God' or

'God-like' in only one lifetime. So the whole 'sway' of Christian indoctrination

goes against Christ's actual teaching that: " You are gods " !

 

For one thing, in order to evolve to become 'gods' or 'like god' a person needs

to be able to reincarnate. Christian ministers have in theory, taken away the

ability to re-incarnate, so how can a person become 'God-like' or 'like God' in

one single incarnation. It is just impossible, which reinforces the belief that

Christ made a mistake when He said: " You are gods " . Christians just don't

believe this statement of Christ, because it is incomprehensible to them,

because of their Christian indoctrination, that is " not of Christ " , but of

man!!!

 

Yet, it is alright for Christians to say they want to become 'Christ-like' or

'like Christ'. According to ministers, that does not smack of pride, like it

does, if a Christian says they want to become 'God-like' or 'like God'. However,

Christian Ministers teach that " in practice " , Christ Jesus is God the Father,

that Christ Jesus is God the Holy Spirit, and He is also God the Son. So how can

it also " not " be pride to say that one wants to be 'Christ-like', if Christ is

God?!

 

There is so much that is unnecessarily illogical in traditional Christianity,

because of wrong Christian doctrines, that have replaced the Absolute Truth that

Christ gave! That is also why many Christians have left the Christian Churches.

It is because present day highly intelligent spiritual seekers of the Truth, do

not tolerate idiocy and unintelligible mental concepts, of leaders, who have no

idea of what the Kingdom of God " within " is!!! That is also why, when these same

'ex-Christians' understand the logic that is inherent in the Absolute Truth,

that they will come to the arms of their Loving Spiritual Mother, who is the

Holy Spirit Within, who will not lead them astray, as the doctrines of men have

done, who have just wanted power, prestige and easy money, from others!!!

 

Btw. Jagbir, i have attached a study on this subject, which is examined in light

of Jewish Midrashic understanding, which sheds some very interesting light on

Christ's saying of " You are gods " . It's a long study, but it's worth the read.

 

Please enjoy, everyone!

 

violet

 

 

 

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

 

JEROME H. NEYREY, SJ.

 

 

Biblical texts that called mortals " gods " attracted attention from commentators

and became the focus of ingenious interpretations and exegetical [biblical

interpretative] principles. [1] This is certainly true of Ps 82:6, " I said: 'You

are Gods.' " The present study examines the use of Ps 82:6 in John 10:34-36. It

is my hypothesis that the Fourth Gospel [The Gospel According to John]

understands Psalm 82 very much the way it was understood in Jewish midrash, for

which it might be the earliest extant [still standing or existing] example. An

examination of the understanding and function of Ps 82:6 in John 10:34-36 will

necessarily entail a survey of Jewish interpretations of that Psalm to put the

Johannine passage in its proper perspective.

 

 

I. Status Questions

 

In the 1960s, a debate emerged over the interpretation of Ps 82:6-7 in relation

to John 10:34-36, 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) Melchizedek, © judges,

and (d) Israel at Sinai. All four interpretations are attested to in midrashic

literature, but which one relates to John 10:34-36?

 

Angels

 

In an early study on Psalm 82, J. A. Emerton [3] argued that in the targum to

the Psalms, [4] Qumran, [5] the Peshitta, and the Fathers, elohim in Psalm 82

was understood to refer to " angels. " Emerton suggests that elohim refers to

superhuman beings to whom the nations were allotted (e.g., Deut 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 [in reference to] Melchizedek. The

modern editor of llQMelch described the document as an " eschatological 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 1lQMelch strengthening his earlier interpretation of Psalm

82; he suggested that Melchizedek was being identified 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 refer to the judges of

Israel, evidence for which comes from b, Ber. 6a and Midr. Ps. 82. [9] This

interpretation of the psalm enjoyed considerable popularity during a certain

period of Johannine scholarship. [10] Returning to the issue of Melchizedek in

llQMelch, Joseph Fitzmyer, [11] who basically agreed with van der Woude's

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 82:6-7 was 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 Israel the word of Torah, to which it

became obedient, Israel became deathless once more as it resumed the " image and

likeness of God " given it at creation. James Ackerman, the chief proponent of

this argument, suggested that the 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 traditions

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, are

deficient for several reasons. First, they tend to argue for an extrinsic

interpretation 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

justification 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 [assertion]? Second, those who treat the background of Psalm

82, even in passing, do not present an adequate exegesis [biblical

interpretation] 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 [biblical interpretation] 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 [external] manner [21] 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 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 (10:1-28a)

 

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

'am ha-ares (7:47-49), could not possibly decide these 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,

10:1-28a can be seen as a forensic proceeding [22] 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

 

1. The (true) sheep hear his voice (10:3b)

 

2. I know my own and my own know me (10:14)

 

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

 

 

10:27-28a

 

1. My sheep hear my voice (10:27a)

 

2. I know them (10:27b)

 

3. And they follow me (10:27c)

 

 

By Jesus' criteria of judgment, then, he proves that his judges are not his

sheep nor is he their shepherd. According to the Gospel's logic, these

self-confessed non-sheep have rejected Jesus' basic claims to be God's agent and

so are convicted of sin and unbelief (see John 3:18, 20; 5:40-45; 9:39-41;

12:46-48). Yet the forensic process is not yet finished.

 

 

The Second Forensic Proceeding (10:28b-39)

 

In 10:28-30 Jesus makes newer and bolder claims Although formerly this Gospel

claimed that believers by their own judgment come to life and pass beyond death

(3:16-19; 5:24), now Jesus asserts that he himself is the giver of eternal life:

" I give them eternal life and they never perish " (10:28a). He asserts that " no

one shall snatch them out of my hand " (10:28b). [24] Thus, Jesus now functions

as the active agent of life, as giver of eternal life and as protector of his

sheep even in death. Yet these claims would put him on a par with the

all-powerful God.

 

10:29 states two things about God. First, God is " greater than all " [25] in

virtue of God's ruling or executive power as pantocrator,

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Pantocrator] despotes,

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotes], and basileus.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basileus] [26] Second, of God it is said, " My

Father…has given them [the sheep] to me and no one is able to snatch them out of

the Father’s hand " (10:29). Concerning the latter remark, then, Jesus and God

are alike, even equal.

 

 

Jesus (10:28)

 

I give them eternal life and they shall not perish forever, and no one shall

snatch them out of my hand.

 

 

The Father (10:29)

 

My Father...has given them to me and no one is able to snatch them out of the

Father's hand.

 

 

To underscore the boldness of Jesus' claims, the text emphasizes that " God is

greater than all " (10:29b), thus raising God above all other creatures, be they

of no power or great power. Yet Jesus claims that he is " equal to " God who is

" greater than all, " when he draws the conclusion in 10:30, " I and the Father are

hen. "

 

Literally hen means " one. " But the context suggests that this adjective be

translated as " equal to " or " on a par with. " Jesus claims far more than mere

moral unity with God, which was the aim of every Israelite; such moral unity

would never mean that mortals had become " god; " as Jesus' remark is understood

in 10:31-33. 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 comparison 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 Death [28] 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 life and rescues the

dead from the snares of Death (see John 5:25, 28-29; 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 (5:21-29). [30] God gave him power (1) to give eternal

life (5:21; 10:28), (2) to judge (5:22, 27; 8:21-30), (3) to be honored as

Lawmaker and Judge (5:23), (4) to have life in himself (5:26; 10:17-18), and (5)

to raise the dead and judge them (5:28-29). In fact, 5:21-29, a summary of

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

subsequently develops in chaps, 8, 10, and 11. [31] The claims in 10:28-30,

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

 

Our exegesis [biblical interpretation] of 10:22-30 yields the following

information. A second forensic process begins in 10:28-30. Jesus is formally on

trial, not just concerning whether he is " the Christ " (10:23-24), 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

(10:28-30):

 

(a) " I give them eternal life "

 

(b) " they do not perish forever "

 

© " 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 any relationship 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 proceedings 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 care­fully 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 argument by

reducing the claim from " god " to " son of God, " because if one continues reading

Ps 82:6, the two terms are considered parallel and equivalent there ( " I said,

'You are gods, all of you, sons of the Most High' " ). [34] In claiming to be 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 of critical

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 take things

literally, either Jesus' word or the scriptures. Regularly we find a pattern

where Jesus makes a statement, which his hearers misunderstand because they take

it on a literal level, which leads Jesus to issue a clarification which exposes

the spiritual or inner meaning of his words. [35] It seems improbable, then,

that the Fourth Gospel is dealing superficially with Psalm 82, asking 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, can be 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 " is so 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, which I think is absolutely correct. [37]

Yet what is the shape of the midrash on this 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 preexistent 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 preexistent 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 82:6-7 in 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 the decree

has long ago been decreed. R. Jose says: It was upon this condition that the

Israelites stood up before Mount Sinai, on the condition that the Angel of Death

should have not power over them. For it is said: " I SAID: YE ARE GODS " (Ps

82:6). But you have corrupted your conduct. " SURELY YE 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 so because Israel

became deathless, that is, beyond the power of the Angel of Death, Ps 82:6

applied to them, " I said 'You are gods.' " Gods, then, because deathless. But

with the worship of the golden calf, Israel sinned, and suffered once 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 20:18-19 above); " therefore, " they 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 only so that the Angel of Death

should have no dominion over them, as it is said: " I SAID: YE ARE GODS AND ALL

OF YOU SONS OF THE MOST HIGH " (Ps 82:6). Now that you have spoilt your deeds,

" YE SHALL DIE LIKE MORTALS' (Ps 82:7). [42]

 

 

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's

Torah for the express purpose that the Angel of Death should not have power over

it. Something else, then, is operative here which suggests that receiving God's

word (Torah) makes one holy, and if holy, then sinless, and if sinless, then

deathless.

 

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

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 [violating faith]

people.

 

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

and obey " (Exod 24:7), (whereupon) " I SAID: YE ARE GODS' (Ps 82:6); but when you

said to the (golden) calf, " This is thy god, 0 Israel " (Exod 32:4), I said to

you, " NEVERTHELESS, YE SHALL DIE LIKE MEN " (Ps 82:7). [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 godlike

quality, for which reason Israel is called god. Yet with Israel's new sin comes

death, the typical fate of sinful mortals ( " ye shall die like men " ).

 

The basic lines of the midrashic understanding of Ps 82:6-7, then, are clear.

When Israel at Sinai received God's Torah and obeyed, this led to genuine

holiness which resulted in deathlessness; hence, Israel could be called god

because deathless. But when disobedient and sinful, Israel deserved the wages of

sin, that is, death; hence, Israel could be called man.

 

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 obedience-holiness-deathlessness lies back in the Genesis 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 complained to

the Holy One, blessed be He: 'I have then been created in the world to no

purpose!' The Holy One, blessed be He, replied: ‘I have created you in order

that you shall destroy idol-worshippers, 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 leave 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: 'I 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; I 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, “I SAID YE ARE

GODS;” but you have ruined yourselves like Adam, and so " INDEED, YE SHALL DIE

like Adam " (Num Rab. 16.24) [45]

 

 

The typical features of the midrashic understanding of Ps 82:6-7 are clearly

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

( " cleaving unto the Lord " ), © deathlessness or immortality ( " freedom from the

Angel of Death " .. " live and endure for ever like Me " ), and hence (d) Israel

being called god (Ps 82:6). This midrash makes explicit the generally assumed

doctrine of the relation of sin and death found primarily in Genesis 1-3, 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 and endure for ever”). Adam died

precisely because he sinned and lost God's holiness and " image. " This midrash

also makes clear that interpreters of Ps 82:6-7 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

 

1. created in holiness

 

2. and so deathless

 

3. yet sinned (ate fruit)

 

4. and so died

 

 

Israel at Sinai

 

1. reconstituted in holiness

 

2. and so deathless

 

3. yet sinned (worshipped calf)

 

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 understanding 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 the earliest midrash

cited above, the Mekilta, implies as much as it states, probably because it

reflects a very common tradition which is presumably well known. Not all of the

elements of the midrash, moreover, need be explicitly mentioned when the Psalm

is interpreted, for midrash is like an iceberg. As much is implied as is

visible. With this survey of midrashic interpretation of Ps 82:6 in mind, we

return to John 10:34-36. Does the Fourth Gospel interpret Psalm 82 in a

midrashic manner, and, if so, how much of the midrash does it know and use?

 

 

IV. Midrash in John 10:34-36

 

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

to see where John 10:34-36 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 [external] 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 1-3 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, ‘You are gods’” apropos of [in reference to] “those to whom the word

of God came” (10:34-35). People, then, are not called god gratuitously, for

there is intrinsic [inherent] content to the predication [assertion]. 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 10:34-36 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 is not

blasphemy if Jesus, whom God consecrated and sent as his apostle into the world,

is called god and Son of God. Holiness or sinlessness again serves as the ground

for calling someone, Israel or Jesus, god.

 

Throughout the Fourth Gospel. Jesus’ holiness or sinfulness has been a formal

topic of debate. As regards his alleged sinfulness, the Gospel repeatedly takes

note of the popular judgment of Jesus as a sinner (9:16, 24), a judgment based

on his two healings on the sabbath (5:1-17; 9:1-7). His enemies, moreover,

charge him with being thoroughly evil, that is, possessed of a demon (7:20;

8:48; 10:20). Here in 10:33 and 36 he is charged with a new sin, blasphemy, for

claiming to be “equal to God.”

 

 

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 5:31-46). 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 (1:1-2) 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 obedience

to God’s will (5:31; 7:21-23). In fact, Jesus’ very ability to open the eyes of

the blind testifies to his closeness to God (9:31-33). 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 purposes [48] 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 us recall the

testimony of the Baptizer in 1:30-31. John testified that he saw God’s Spirit

not only descend on Jesus but “remain on him” (1:32-33), 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 10:34-35 understands Ps 82:6 to mean that obedience

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 10:28-36. 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 mode 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 consecrated servant, agent, and apostle, a person totally set

apart by God for sacred duty. [50] The apology based on Psalm 82, then, argues

two things: it refutes the charge that Jesus makes himself “Son of God,” even

as it affirms his 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

10:28-30 which 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’ “equality

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 is taken from him, either by men or

the Angel of Death. For, as he declares, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it

down of my own accord” (10:18a). Furthermore, his death occurs in strict

obedience to God, not as punishment for sinfulness on his part: “This

commandment I have received from my Father (10:18b). In 10:28-30, moreover,

Jesus claims to be equal to God in having God’s own power over death. Jesus,

then, while not literally deathless himself, has full power over death.

 

Indisputably Jesus dies, but the Fourth Gospel steadfastly maintains that Jesus

has power over death, both the death of his followers and his own. We noted

earlier how this Gospel proclaims that Jesus has God’s eschatological 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 was received

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 full midrashic

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 the intimate

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 “consecrated 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 the apology 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 forensic 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 important in John

10. In this Gospel, his deathlessness [51] does not formally derive from

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 reason than

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 discusses 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 were written 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] Appreciation

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]

 

http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.html

 

 

 

> Dear All,

>

> Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and children of the most

High?

> Why do so many Christans think it's evil to believe we become like

> God... that we eventually can become gods? But the Bible is

littered

> with the promise and surety that humans are inherently divine and

of

> the nature of spirit:

>

> 1.To become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, being

glorified

> together (Romans 8:14-18)

> 2. As sons (and daughters) of God, to inherit all things that the

> Father has (Revelation 21:7)

> 3.To become one with Christ, as Christ is one with the Father (John

> 17:20-23)

> 4.To sit with Christ on His throne (Rev. 3:21)

> 5.To receive a glorified, immortal body like the body that Christ

has

> (Philip. 3:21)

> 6.To partake of the divine nature and be given all things

pertaining

> to life and godliness, receiving glory (2 Peter 1:3-4)

> 7.To be made - in some way - like Christ when He returns (1 John

3:2)

> 8.To be made kings and priests unto God and his Father (Rev. 1:6)

> 9. As spirit children of God, to become partakers of his holiness

> (Heb. 12:9-10)

> 10.To be exalted by God (1 Peter 5:6)

> 11.To become perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect

(Matt.

> 5:48)

>

> In fact Jesus clearly states, when rejected by the Jews for

claiming

> Himself as the Son of God, that all humans are gods:

>

> " Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are

> gods? " John 10:34)

>

> What is missed by Christians and Jews is that while Jesus only

> claimed Himself to be the Son of God, the Jewish scriptures

confirmed

> that humans were indeed gods. So why should the Jews threaten Him

for

> being lesser i.e., just the Son? Jesus was in fact mocking both

their

> ignorance of scripture, and arrogance of righteousness and

judgment:

>

> 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye

are

> gods?

> 35 If he called them gods, 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?

> 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

> 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that

ye

> may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

> 39 Therefore they sought again to take him; but he escaped out of

> their hand,

> 40 and went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at

> first baptized; Joh. 1.28 and there he abode.

> 41 And many resorted unto him and said, John did no miracle: but

all

> things that John spake of this man were true.

> 42 And many believed on him there.

>

>

> So what can we make out of Jesus' claim that " Ye are gods " ? What

has

> it got to do with second birth (Kundalini awakening)? What is their

> relationship with Shri Mataji's Self-realization? What is the Self

> actually, and how is it realized? To answer these questions i have

> quoted Brian Hodgkinson:

>

> The Self as Spirit

>

> Vedanta accepts this logical introduction to the enquiry into the

> self. Self as subject should never be confused with any object.

> Anything that the self observes cannot be self. Can anything

positive

> then be said of it? The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has a great deal

to

> say about the self. For example:

>

> `This Self is nearer than all else, dearer than son, dearer than

> wealth, dearer than anything. If a man call anything dearer than

> Self, say that he will lose what is dear, of certainty he will lose

> it; for Self is God. Therefore one should worship Self as Love. Who

> worships Self his love shall never perish … This Self is the Lord

of

> all beings; as spokes are knit together in the hub, all things, all

> gods, all men, all lives, are bodies, are knit together in that

Self. "

>

> (pp. 121, 135)

>

> `He wanted every form, for He wanted to show Himself; as a magician

> He appears in many forms, He masters hundreds of thousands of

powers.

> He is those powers; those millions of powers. He is Spirit; without

> antecedent, without precedent, without inside, without outside;

> omnipresent, omniscient. Self is Spirit. That is revelation.'

>

> (p. 136)

>

> The connection between these two passages lies in the assertion

that

> self is spirit. Self is dear, self is to be worshipped, self is

love,

> because it is spirit. What can be observed is material. Things in

> space, including human bodies, are material, made of gross

elements;

> things in the mind are subtle, made of finer material and

observable

> as imagined objects or thoughts, feelings and emotions; but the

> witness of them all, of all materiality, is of a different order.

It

> is spirit. To know that spirit is revelation. To know that spirit

is

> not to know an object; it is to realize that one is spirit.

>

> Brian Hodgkinson, The Essence of Vedanta,

> Arcturus Publishing Ltd., Canada, pg. 42-3

>

>

> All the Holy Scriptures - Torah, Bible, Qur'an, Upanishads, Vedas,

> Puranas, Granth Sahib - uphold the Self as Spirit, the essence and

> presence of the Divine in humans. That is why Jesus answered them

in

> the temple, " Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? " .

> Self-realization is a slow process of confirming the same divinity

> i.e., the Divine within humans. No external images, rituals or

> contacts whatsoever are needed for this inner journey to realize

and

> meditate in the Kingdom of God within.

>

> So why do many Christans think it's evil to believe we become like

> God... that we eventually can become gods? That is definitely not

the

> case. Humans only realize the Divine - the Self as Spirit within.

> They only realize their own divine nature i.e., the essence and

> presence of the Divine within. That does not mean they become God

> Almighty. Even Shri Mataji has said that Self-realization does not

> mean you become gods. Christians (Jews and Muslims) are just

ignorant

> of the true teachings and deep, subtle esoteric truths of Jesus

that,

> when understood properly, is not self-deification. Realizing the

> presence and essence of Self as Spirit/God/Divine within and

> meditating on it is not self-deification. Asking others to meditate

> on you is.

>

> regards to all,

>

> jagbir

>

[Guest guest]

, " jagbir

singh " <adishakti_org wrote:

 

Dear Jagbir (and All),

 

This would be a great article to put in " Editor's Choice " at HSS

(Holy Spirit Shekinah), if you agree Jagbir. i meant to mention in my

last post, that you have cut through all the scholarly studies, in

your enlightened explanation, that simply explains the Truth, so

Christians can also understand it!!!

 

regards to all,

 

violet

 

 

 

> Dear All,

>

> Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and children of the most

High?

> Why do so many Christans think it's evil to believe we become like

> God... that we eventually can become gods? But the Bible is

littered

> with the promise and surety that humans are inherently divine and

of

> the nature of spirit:

>

> 1.To become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, being

glorified

> together (Romans 8:14-18)

> 2. As sons (and daughters) of God, to inherit all things that the

> Father has (Revelation 21:7)

> 3.To become one with Christ, as Christ is one with the Father (John

> 17:20-23)

> 4.To sit with Christ on His throne (Rev. 3:21)

> 5.To receive a glorified, immortal body like the body that Christ

has

> (Philip. 3:21)

> 6.To partake of the divine nature and be given all things

pertaining

> to life and godliness, receiving glory (2 Peter 1:3-4)

> 7.To be made - in some way - like Christ when He returns (1 John

3:2)

> 8.To be made kings and priests unto God and his Father (Rev. 1:6)

> 9. As spirit children of God, to become partakers of his holiness

> (Heb. 12:9-10)

> 10.To be exalted by God (1 Peter 5:6)

> 11.To become perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect

(Matt.

> 5:48)

>

> In fact Jesus clearly states, when rejected by the Jews for

claiming

> Himself as the Son of God, that all humans are gods:

>

> " Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are

> gods? " John 10:34)

>

> What is missed by Christians and Jews is that while Jesus only

> claimed Himself to be the Son of God, the Jewish scriptures

confirmed

> that humans were indeed gods. So why should the Jews threaten Him

for

> being lesser i.e., just the Son? Jesus was in fact mocking both

their

> ignorance of scripture, and arrogance of righteousness and

judgment:

>

> 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye

are

> gods?

> 35 If he called them gods, 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?

> 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

> 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that

ye

> may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

> 39 Therefore they sought again to take him; but he escaped out of

> their hand,

> 40 and went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at

> first baptized; Joh. 1.28 and there he abode.

> 41 And many resorted unto him and said, John did no miracle: but

all

> things that John spake of this man were true.

> 42 And many believed on him there.

>

>

> So what can we make out of Jesus' claim that " Ye are gods " ? What

has

> it got to do with second birth (Kundalini awakening)? What is their

> relationship with Shri Mataji's Self-realization? What is the Self

> actually, and how is it realized? To answer these questions i have

> quoted Brian Hodgkinson:

>

> The Self as Spirit

>

> Vedanta accepts this logical introduction to the enquiry into the

> self. Self as subject should never be confused with any object.

> Anything that the self observes cannot be self. Can anything

positive

> then be said of it? The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has a great deal

to

> say about the self. For example:

>

> `This Self is nearer than all else, dearer than son, dearer than

> wealth, dearer than anything. If a man call anything dearer than

> Self, say that he will lose what is dear, of certainty he will lose

> it; for Self is God. Therefore one should worship Self as Love. Who

> worships Self his love shall never perish … This Self is the Lord

of

> all beings; as spokes are knit together in the hub, all things, all

> gods, all men, all lives, are bodies, are knit together in that

Self. "

>

> (pp. 121, 135)

>

> `He wanted every form, for He wanted to show Himself; as a magician

> He appears in many forms, He masters hundreds of thousands of

powers.

> He is those powers; those millions of powers. He is Spirit; without

> antecedent, without precedent, without inside, without outside;

> omnipresent, omniscient. Self is Spirit. That is revelation.'

>

> (p. 136)

>

> The connection between these two passages lies in the assertion

that

> self is spirit. Self is dear, self is to be worshipped, self is

love,

> because it is spirit. What can be observed is material. Things in

> space, including human bodies, are material, made of gross

elements;

> things in the mind are subtle, made of finer material and

observable

> as imagined objects or thoughts, feelings and emotions; but the

> witness of them all, of all materiality, is of a different order.

It

> is spirit. To know that spirit is revelation. To know that spirit

is

> not to know an object; it is to realize that one is spirit.

>

> Brian Hodgkinson, The Essence of Vedanta,

> Arcturus Publishing Ltd., Canada, pg. 42-3

>

>

> All the Holy Scriptures - Torah, Bible, Qur'an, Upanishads, Vedas,

> Puranas, Granth Sahib - uphold the Self as Spirit, the essence and

> presence of the Divine in humans. That is why Jesus answered them

in

> the temple, " Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? " .

> Self-realization is a slow process of confirming the same divinity

> i.e., the Divine within humans. No external images, rituals or

> contacts whatsoever are needed for this inner journey to realize

and

> meditate in the Kingdom of God within.

>

> So why do many Christans think it's evil to believe we become like

> God... that we eventually can become gods? That is definitely not

the

> case. Humans only realize the Divine - the Self as Spirit within.

> They only realize their own divine nature i.e., the essence and

> presence of the Divine within. That does not mean they become God

> Almighty. Even Shri Mataji has said that Self-realization does not

> mean you become gods. Christians (Jews and Muslims) are just

ignorant

> of the true teachings and deep, subtle esoteric truths of Jesus

that,

> when understood properly, is not self-deification. Realizing the

> presence and essence of Self as Spirit/God/Divine within and

> meditating on it is not self-deification. Asking others to meditate

> on you is.

>

> regards to all,

>

> jagbir

>