Two Half-Thoughts

About Jesus's defense of calling himself a god & the question: was the Enlightenment an ideology?

Scripture cannot be set aside.

Yesterday in a note, internet-friend Yoshi posted something important:

For a long time, this exchange has been central to my thinking about Christianity, so I wanted to throw in two cents.

Let me start with a couple of analogous situations. Imagine that a new President-elect is driving around Washington D.C. to celebrate his victory, and he is criticized for moving freely past checkpoints and police barriers. If he chooses to make an exceptional defense, he will reply, “But I am the President, I have special rights due to my position and title.” On the other hand, if he chooses to make a general defense of his behavior, he will say, “Are your founding documents not filled with promises of liberty and the right to travel? If you uphold those ideals, why do you accuse me of arrogance when I move as if they are real? I only act as every citizen should.”

Or again, imagine that a President is accused of mishandling secrets or overstepping boundaries of intelligence. If his reply alludes to his own position and his own special authority, that is what I’m calling an exceptional defense. But if he defends himself by saying, “Is it not written in your laws that a well-informed citizenry is the foundation of a free society? Then why do you accuse me of wrongdoing for exposing what all citizens deserve to know?” —or something like that, then he is offering a general defense.

The exceptional defense hinges on exceptional status, whereas a general defense is meant to apply to all. Now, charged with blasphemy, with claiming to be divine, though he is a man, which kind of defense would we expect Jesus to make? Given everything we think we know from church tradition and consensus, we should certainly expect Jesus to say something,

Yes, you pharisees are wise—you know the Law well; it is blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. It is good of you to accuse me and seek punishment. However, it just so happens, I am God. So in this case, we have an exception!

But that is not what Jesus says. Jesus does not offer an exception defense, and the defense he offers does not involve his own special or exceptional status. Instead, he makes a general defense. This is why, as Yoshi indicated, this passage is generally ignored or even despised by some Christians. Let’s read the whole scene again:

“I and the Father are one.”

Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods?”’ If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

The charge is clear. Everyone knew the implications: Leviticus 24:10-16 was clear about what should be done to blasphemers.

The only reply that Jesus could give that makes sense within standard/orthodox Christianity would be an exceptional defense. He absolutely must say, at that point, “Yes, I see why you would want to stone me, but!—” and then he should do a miracle, or at least claim to be the exception. He should, at the very least, say, “But I am no mere man! I am divine!” But he doesn’t. Instead, he makes a general defense of blasphemy, a defense that any common mortal could equally make.

He cites Psalm 82:6. Here’s the whole section:

God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
“How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

This makes no sense! A beginning-level content editor would catch this in even the cheapest Hollywood script. Jesus actually is God, so why is he making an appeal before his accusers that would defend any man claiming divinity? There’s no comfortable answer to this question.

A deeper dive reveals that Psalm 82:6 is a reference to Exodus 21:6, where those who are appointed to be judges or magistrates are said to be “gods,” and were said to be sons of the Most High. Like a figure of speech, perhaps. But Jesus also can’t be saying that, because then he would only be saying he is some kind of mortal magistrate—and that also would cut against central Christian dogma.

And yet there you have it: Jesus defends himself on a general basis. He is not singular. Instead, he is like the magistrates and judges of the Old Testament — in that way, he is a god, a son of the Most High. Blasphemy charge and punishment averted.

I don’t really have much else to say about it. I admit, this is not the overall thrust of the New Testament. Even in John’s gospel, there are good indications that Jesus’s singular/exceptional nature are being described intentionally. Think of John 3:16: “…his only begotten son.” But this scene in John 10 certainly sticks in the craw of a careful reader.

---

One other thing. Really just a question.

I was watching another video about Protestantism and the Enlightenment, and the YouTuber made the surprising claim that the Enlightenment was itself an ideology. It made me pause. Anyone have a thought about this?

What’s interesting is that the Enlightenment would pose the same kind of challenge to Astrology or Hinduism that it poses to Christianity. Of course, I am aware of the trad rhetoric that suggests that the Enlightenment only “poses” as a neutral approach. Still, it seems neutral to me, or as close to neutral as can be. It basically says, “Observe reality without superstitious filters or faith-based presuppositions.” Obviously, that is a challenge to every system founded on superstition and faith—but it does not seem ideological to me. It seems deconstructive, but it gives no positive direction.

Anyway, as the algorithm encourages us to say to one another: “Thoughts?”