Dear Guenter:

Your friend is making a common and fundamental mistake in his interpretation of the Bible. We cannot interpret a passage of Scripture without considering its context. If we fail in doing this we virtually guarantee a misinterpretation. Your friend is misinterpreting.

To properly interpret the Bible we first must realize that the letters (epistles) and books of the Bible were not written in a vacuum. The writers of the various epistles and books were writing to a specific group or person with a specific theme and purpose in mind. The writers wrote their epistles or books in a way that the people at the time could understand his message and relate it to the circumstances at the time for which inspired the writing of the epistle or book in the first place.

For example, First and Second Corinthians was written to the Church in Corinth about the local problems that church was having. The epistle of Galatians was written to the Church in Galatia, etc. While these epistles were letters to particular people about problems they were having, it has relevance and instruction for us today. But, we MUST first understand this context if we ever hope to interpret correctly.

Then in terms of specific stories, speeches, events recorded in these epistles and books we must also understand the context: what was going on, what is the story behind the story, what is the message to the people at the time.

We must understand who is talking, who is he talking to, why is the narrator talking to these people, what message was the narrator trying to convey to these people, what were these people doing or expecting, was there something going on in the background that inspired the speech or conversation, what is the cultural context, the sociological context at the time, the theological context, the historical context, the literary context and style, grammatical and linguistic context and convention, the context of the Old Testament teachings as understood by the people of the time.

We MUST understand context before we can even begin to properly understand a passage from the Bible.

Only from this analysis of the context of the time can be begin to understand the principles and instruction the passage has for us today.

To give a quick example of how people so easily misinterpret the Bible consider this passage:

Matthew 1:25: "And knew her not until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she had brought forth her firstborn son."

The inference that many Fundamentalists make from the word "until" is that Joseph and Mary were chaste before the birth of Jesus ("until" the birth of Jesus) but had sex and other children "after" the birth of Jesus. They also assert that this is shown in Scripture because it says that Jesus was called "first-born". This must mean that there was a "second-born" and maybe a "third-born," "fourth-born," etc.

This understanding of "until" and "firstborn" is a modern-day understanding. This passage was not written in 21st Century America. It was written in 1st Century Palestine. If we are going to understand this passage we MUST understand the language as THEY used it then, not has we use it now.

In the Bible, the use of "until" or "til" means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point and implies nothing about what happens later.

If we were to apply the modern-day sense of the word "until" (as meaning that something did not happen up to a certain point, but did happen after that point), we would have some difficult things to explain in Scripture.

For example, consider this verse: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Does this mean that Michal had children AFTER she died?

A similar misinterpretation occurs by failing to understand the language convention of the ancient Jews of the phrase, "first-born". Fundamentalist will insist that the Scripture referring to Jesus as Mary's "first-born" proves that other children followed.

The way the ancient Jews used this term is that it referred to the child who "opened the womb" (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12); the mother's first child. Even today when a mother has her "first child" we refer to her having her "first child" before she has a second child and regardless if she has any other children. For the ancient Jews the first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

These are but two of many examples that can be given of misinterpretations based upon ignorance of context.

Now, with this as an introduction, let us examine the passages you asked about -- John 10:35 and Psalm 82:6:

Borrowing and paraphrasing from the Heydock Commentary of the 19th Century (one of the best collections of commentary on the bible available in Matthew 10:34 Jesus is answering the arguments of the Jews that challenge his contention that he was the Son of God. They were so incensed that Jesus called himself God. In a rhetorical strategy Jesus went right to the heart of their hypocrisy. He said, "Is it not written in your law..." referring to Psalms in which even they were sometimes called Gods who acted upon God's authority, and were the image of God on earth by the authority they exercised and received from God (Ps 82:6).

If judges, even those whom God condemns, may be styled gods without blasphemy (cf. Ps 82:6), how much more might Jesus Christ be called God, who was holy and did the works of God? Jesus uses this argument to make the fury of the people abate. The Jews were trapped, they did not know how to answer this because indeed Jesus was telling the truth, sometimes men are called Gods.

Jesus went on to prove, however, that he himself was God not only in this sense of the old law as someone with God's authority, but in a very different and proper sense. He was sanctified by the Father in an infinite sanctification (as St. Augustine puts it) in which he is always preceding from the Father. Jesus confirms what he had told the Jews before, that he was the Son of God sent into the world, that he was in the Father and the Father in him.

If Jesus had not been God, He would surely have told them plainly, as St. Paul did when people would have offered sacrifice to him, and as St. John the Baptist confessed that he was not the Christ.

The sons of Seth, priests, the just, and all the Israelites, were styled sons of God, as well as the angels and judges, Gen 6:2, Ps 29:1., Wis v. 5., and Job 1:6. But no individual is called the Son, except Jesus Christ the true God. (Berthier)

The Jews understood this and tried to stone him.

Bottonline: these passages are NOT saying there are many Gods. On the contrary these passages affirm that there is but one God. The language conventions of the Old Testament times styled people in authority as "gods" because they acted on behalf of God and under His authority. This is the language of the economy of delegated and authorized authority.

A human father can just as easily say, using this Old Testament language, I am the "god" of my house, or the "king" of my house because he is the spiritual leader of the household. We Catholics call the husband/father the "priest" of the home. These designations do not make him the one true God, or a ministerial ordained priest, or an actually king of royalty. Rather these are representative designations.

Your friend is rather ignorant of Scripture. He should not be throwing out verses -- he will make a fool of himself.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary