William Mounce-"Make Yourself God" (John 10:33)-Draft Version

1 Peter 3:15 encourages Christians to defend the faith with mildness and deep respect toward those who oppose Christianity (cf. 1 Peter 3:2). My approach is normally mildness and respect toward others: I don't like calling people names or putting down their abilities or intelligence. However, I must say that William Mounce's tone, stuffiness and rudimentary errors on one of his Greek Mondays got my attention. See https://billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/%E2%80%9Cmake-yourself-god%E2%80%9D-john-10-33

My comments: I am not a Greek grammarian or a noted NT scholar although I have a classical languages degree. Nevertheless, the errors committed by Mounce are clear to me.

1) John 10:33 reads (WH): ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.

Mounce claims that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus because the Son of God asserted that he and the Father are one (John 10:30). In 10:33, his listeners accuse him of blasphemy, ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.

Mounce writes: "The Jewish response shows clearly that Jesus was making a claim to be God, the God, Yahweh."

For the sake of argument, even if we assume that Jesus was claiming to be God (Yahweh or Jehovah), it's by no means "clearly" shown that he was undertaking this action when we read the Jewish reply since there are other ways to understand the response, even if one is a Trinitarian. We don't have to infer that Jesus was claiming divine prerogatives. In fact, Novatian of Rome concluded that John 10:30 demonstrates the Son may be "God," but he is still the Father's inferior. See De Trinitate XXVII.16ff. Tertullian's understanding of the verse is also noteworthy.

2) Mounce continues: "First of all, 'a god' is highly interpretive. Anyone who knows Greek knows that there is no indefinite article, 'a.'"

I find two surprising utterances in this sentence. Firstly, Mounce has to know that "a god" is a possible translation--not "highly interpretive--for the anarthrous θεόν at 10:33. Compare 1 Kings 18:27: ἐπικαλεῖσθε ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὅτι θεός ἐστιν. Secondly, while there may be no indefinite article in Greek, we sometimes use one anyway when translating Greek as the famous example of Acts 28:6 illustrates. Compare "a god" for that verse in NIV, ESV, NASB, NET, KJV, and more.

3) Another observation sallied forth by Mounce: "Secondly, these are Jews speaking, who do not have a concept of multiple 'god[s]'; if Jesus claimed to be a pagan deity, one among many, we would expect a different response."

It is less than clear what Mounce possibly means by the Jews not possessing a concept of many gods. If he means that they were not conceptually aware of other gods recognized/venerated by the nations, then he's starkly wrong. He probably means to say that the Jews understood references to "God" or a god as applicable to Yahweh (Jehovah). They would have interpreted Jesus to mean that he was Yahweh--not a competitor deity like the nations revered or some demigod. However, other scholars have rightly pointed out (in my estimation) that the Jews recognized existent deities who were subordinate to YHWH. That is to say, elohim or qeos could be applied to lesser beings like angels without breaching the unique oneness of God. Men were possibly given the appellation elohim too as we may find with human judges. See Ralph L. Smith, Old Testament Theology, page 232ff. Compare D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic:

"There is ample evidence to show that [the OT] conception of monotheism was held in conjunction with a belief in a spiritual world peopled with supernatural and superhuman beings who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being, of God" (page 235).

Besides, who thinks Jesus would have claimed to be a pagan deity? He could have been calling attention to his divine qualities as a member of the elohim class. In a different vein, Charles C. Ryrie makes this pronouncement about the biblical use of elohim, writing that man is "lower than angels since they belong to a class of superhuman beings (elohim) who are stronger than man by nature and, unlike man, not subject to death" (Basic Theology, p. 127).

So John 10:33 could be translated "God," but I don't think that is the only possible translation or necessarily the default rendering.

4) After discussing object-complements, Mounce states: "So the default translation is, 'make yourself to be God.'"

How about "make yourself to be a god"? The rendering could be mistaken, but how Mounce can rule it out is beyond me. For the NEB translates 10:33, "You, a mere man, claim to be a god."

Compare John 19:7; Psalm 82:1-6; John 10:34-36.