Will we ever get a trinitarian exegesis of John 10:34–36?

I’ve searched up, I’ve searched down, I’ve looked all over Steven Hay’s post, and I still found no Exegesis of John 10:34–36. I have asked so many times; 3 posts ago I made sure to only comment on the distractions in a comment, so that we could focus on the actual text in question—yet Steven jumped on the distractions and ignored the text. 2 posts ago I ignored the distractions, commenting only on a few side issues to focus on the actual text in question—he still refused to exegetes the text. 1 post ago I ignored everything except for John 10:34–36 and John 10:30, putting a special emphasis on John 10:34–36 and begging him to give a coherent exegesis that accounts for the text in its context. He still hasn’t done it. He certainly has posted responses; he’s brought up all kinds of arguments against my refutation of his reading of John 10:30, but all he’s really said about Verses 34–35 (which was the entire point of this incredibly exasperating exchange) is that it is, some how, an a fortiori, without explaining what the argument actually is and how it makes sense of the text in the context of Jesus responding to a charge.


I’ve given my reading, it’s straight forward and simple and accounts for what the text actually says within the context of a response to a charge. Steve Hays has given none. Instead he engages in machine gun apologetics (something I’ve talked about before) where instead of dealing with the issue he throws out a bunch of other arguments as a distraction—this is not an honest way to debate. I will not be distracted, if Steve Hays wants to talk about other things we can do that later—but now, what Steve Hays need to do, what the entire point of this correspondence is, is to give a coherent exegesis of John 10:34–36 that makes sense of the text in its context. If Steven Hays does not do that, we can be safe to assume it is because he cannot do that, because that text contradicts his theology. When he does that then we can move on to other things. So here is my Exegesis:

“Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?”

Citing Psalms 82 where beings, which are not Yahweh, are called gods.

If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

The argument here  is clearly that given that these beings are called gods, and they were called “god” by Yahweh, and the word of God came (ἐγένετο—it’s the aorist tense, meaning this happened in the past—ALL the major translations translate that term as “came”, you’re right the aorist isn’t automatically past tense, but it usually is, and in this case it definately is) to them—how can we say that Jesus blasphemed since he Calls himself God’s Son and since he was sanctified and sent into the world.

He goes on to say that they should actually look at his Works.

The Logic of the argument is coherant, and it answers the claim perfectly. What’s your exegesis … we don’t want distractions, we don’t want side arguments, we want a coherent exegesis that actually acconts for the text.

Advertisements
Will we ever get a trinitarian exegesis of John 10:34–36?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s