The Issue: The validity of the Trinitarian translation

The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians claim that these Jews (rightly) understood Jesus was claiming to be God himself.

What the Evidence will Show

The facts will show that the Trinitarian claim is completely unwarranted. It not only inconsistently denies the Greek grammar, it violates the context in which the statement was made.

Examination of the Evidence

Translation Inconsistency

In the Greek text, the definite article is missing before the Greek word anthropos ("man") and the Greek word theos (God/god). Trinitarians translate the passage as "you being A man" but refuse to consistently translate the passage as "make yourself A god."

This passage should read, "you being a man make yourself a god," or at the very least, "you being a man make yourself god (deity, divine by nature)." We will show why the former is to be preferred. Can this be proven for certain? Absolutely. When we carefully observe how Jesus responds to their charge it becomes rather obvious how this verse should be translated.

The Context

Observe the flow of this conversation. The Jews make a charge of blasphemy and Jesus responds to that charge by quoting from the 82nd Psalm.

[The Jewish Charge]: The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy because you, being a man, make yourself a god."

[Jesus' Response to the Charge]: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, "I [YAHWEH] said, 'you are gods'?" If he [YAHWEH] called them gods with whom the word of God came, and Scripture cannot be broken, do you say to the one the Father set apart and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming,' because I said, "I am a son of God'?

Notice how the Jews charge him with blasphemy and Jesus then responds by asking why they charge him with blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God when God calls other beings "gods." To paraphrase, Jesus essentially says, "Why do you have a problem with me being a god? The Scriptures show us that God himself calls other beings "gods." So what then do you say about me, the one who God himself set apart and sent into the world. Why do you charge me with blaspheming when I say, "I am a son of God?" In other words, Jesus completely silences the Jewish objections with YAHWEH's very own words concerning other men "gods," and the Jews did't have a leg to stand on and neither does the Trinitarian. Effectively, Jesus is saying that these Jews were dishonestly charging him when YAHWEH himself calls lower beings than himself "gods."

The Missing Article

The definite article is missing at John 10:33 which is why it should be translated here as "a god." The grammar and context absolutely demands it. First, the word theos here is obviously not qualitative but quantitative. The Jews are contrasting Jesus as a god to Jesus being a man. Moreover, Jesus would simply not have responded the way he did if the Jews had said, "You being a man make yourself out to be [the] "God." If that is indeed what the Jews had said, the Trinitarian has Jesus nonsensically babbling on about God calling others "gods" therefore they should have no problem with him being the son of God. He would be making an absolutely irrelevant point if that were the case, and this is precisely what the Trinitarian has our Lord doing - aimlessly babbling on about "gods" when they claim the Jews had said he made himself out to be "the" God.

Trinitarians render the words kai hoti su anthropos (no definite article) as "a man" but they will turn right around and say you can't translate "poieis seauton theon in the exact same manner as "a god! Why? Because it does not suit their agenda. There is no other reason.

Who are these "gods"?

Trinitarians are often inclined to say these "gods" were the human judges of Israel who acted on behalf of God. However, many leading scholars feel these "gods" are angelic beings. This is a very complicated matter and so instead of wading into those deeper waters, we will look at how this passage in John would be interpreted in light of both these interpretations.

If we are to assume the "judges of Israel" interpretation is correct, then we have Jesus essentially showing the Pharisees they have stuck their foot in their own mouth. At this point in time, the Sanhedrin were regarded as the contemporary version of these judges. These Pharisees sat "on the seat of Moses" and judged the people of Israel. Hence, Jesus is showing them that YAHWEH is referring to the Sanhedrin themselves as "gods." So Jesus is responding by showing them that if indeed they themselves can be called "gods" by God himself, they what about God's very own Son whom he set apart and sent into the world? In other words, Jesus is humiliating them with Scripture. They charge him with referring to himself as a god but God himself refers to them as gods.

If we are to accept the "angelic beings" as "gods" interepretation, then we are to understand that if God calls them "gods" and "sons of the Most High," which is what directly follows in Jesus quotation from this Psalm, then Jesus asks why if they can be called gods by God himself, that it would be wrong for the son of God to be called a "god?" Or at the very least, if God called angelic beings "gods," then Jesus asks why it should be so wrong to identify himself as a son of God.

In either interepretation of the 82nd Psalm, Jesus is pointing out that YAHWEH has called some other beings "gods." If that is so, then Jesus puts them on the spot and asks them why then it would be wrong to refer to him as "a god" especially in view of the fact he is the Son of God? Jesus' main point is not to necessarily prove he is a "god," although that may also be the case, but to demonstrate that the Jewish argument is groundless.

Conclusion

No matter which way you look at it, the Jews certainly did not say that Jesus was making himself out to be the one and only God. The Jews never make such an accusation throughout the whole gospel of John and they eventually charge him with claiming to be the son of God. If we translated this passage as Trinitarians are wont to do, the entire passage becomes non-sensical. If these monotheistic Jews had charged Jesus was making himself "God" then why would Jesus be responding by discussing other "gods?" It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Summation of the Facts

• The definite article is missing on both accounts in this verse. It neither modifies anthropos or theos. Trinitarians inconsistently translate the verse from one instance to the next. It should either read "a man make yourself a god" or at the very least "being human make yourself divine."



• Jesus shows us how HE understood their charge. Jesus responds by proving that God called other beings "gods" therefore they have no argument against him. Jesus' quotation of God's words regarding other gods is total nonsense unless that is what the Jews were charging him with calling himself.

Call for Discernment

Once again we have a situation where Trinitarians are plainly not being honest with the facts. They have absolutely no grammatical reason for translating it as they do and absolutely no grammatical reason for refusing to translate the verse as "make yourself A god." And indeed, Jesus shows us how he understood the Jewish charge by justifying his situation by quoting God calling other beings "gods."

"You being a man make yourself a god." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, "I said, 'you are gods'?"