Ps 82, neXt Bible ... keeping in mind that neXt Bible is the updated NET Bible (also available via google).
Excerpts from neXt Bible footnote wrote:The psalmist pictures God standing in the “assembly of El” where he accuses the “gods” of failing to promote justice on earth. God pronounces sentence upon them, announcing that they will die like men.
The phrase עֲדַת אֵל (’adat ’el, “assembly of El”) appears only here in the OT.
(1) Some understand “El” to refer to God himself. In this case he is pictured presiding over his own heavenly assembly.
(2) Others take אֵל as a superlative here (“God stands in the great assembly”), as in Pss 36:6 and 80:10.
(3) The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El, who presided over the Canaanite divine assembly. (See Isa 14:13, where El’s assembly is called “the stars of El.”) In the Ugaritic myths the phrase ’dt ’ilm refers to the “assembly of the gods,” who congregate in King Kirtu’s house, where Baal asks El to bless Kirtu’s house (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 91). If the Canaanite divine assembly is referred to here in Ps 82:1, then the psalm must be understood as a bold polemic against Canaanite religion. Israel’s God invades El’s assembly, denounces its gods as failing to uphold justice, and announces their coming demise. For an interpretation of the psalm along these lines, see W. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC 5:533-36.
The present translation assumes that the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (’elohim, “gods”) here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to angelic beings, see Gen 3:5; Ps 8:5; (paraghraphs, mine).
neXt Bible again:
Ps 82:1 God {elohim} stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods {elohim} he {El, mine} renders judgment.
82:2 He {El, mine} says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions
and show favoritism to the wicked? (Selah)
First, note how Ps 82:1a is translated "God"
{elohim}. This is a commonly accepted Name of God (among others) in both Jewish and Christian thought; most usually with the plural explained as "God's plurality of majesty (or attributes)"; while others take the plurality as an argument for the plural members of the Trinity (which is much less accepted among scholars). Also, note how the same word,
elohim, is translated "gods" later in the same verse.
Next Bible's unique translation of Ps 82:1a strikes me as not only unusual, but also can make the verse have alternate meanings. I don't know Hebrew but have done as best I can to look into word studies, and possible translations and interpretations. I've wondered if the verse could read:
Ps 82:1 [The] gods stand {or 'are standing'?} in the assembly of El;
This possibility, however, is beyond my scope of knowledge of Hebrew (though I was just given a "Hebrew 101" type book yesterday as a gift, yay)! It remains I don't know if this translation could be considered legitimate. In other words, when we ask, "When is elohim God's Name? and when does it mean plural deities (gods)?" are questions I don't have answers to.
JC wrote:Rick, thank you for the reference. How does your view (that God was speaking to lesser gods in Psalm 82) square with what Jesus said? If your view is correct then I have a hard time understanding Jesus' argument. Can you expound on this, sir?
Thank you, sir.
The "theory" I've been working with is neXt Bible's: (1) Some understand “El” to refer to God himself. In this case he is pictured presiding over his own heavenly assembly (bold, only to highlight).
If the interpretation I'm working on could be true, Jesus' argumentation might be something like this, John 10:35
(1)
If he called them gods to whom the word of God came
"If El, God Most High, spoke to His Sons, the gods, in His heavenly assembly"
(2)
and scripture can not be broken,
"and it is written thus He spoke {to them}"
(3)
do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world,
"do you say of him [Jesus speaking of himself] whom the Father,
{El, Most High}, set apart and sent to the world"
(4)
You are blaspheming because I said , I am the Son of God?
"You are blaspheming because I said, I am the {uniquely sent, and the one chosen among the many divine sons} Son of God, {whom He commanded to come into the world}?"
Another way to say this might be, "If God Most High has spoken to His divine sons, {as He has indeed spoken thus to them, as the scriptures cannot be altered}, commanding them to be just and righteous; Who has now commanded and sent the One He Chose into the world, why is this so incredible to you?"
In other words, Jesus could be claiming to be not only "a" divine son of God, but "THE" Uniquely Chosen Divine Son: The Sent-One-Son-of-God.
Cf.,
John 1:18:
NASB has:
No one has ever seen God; the only God {or, 'the Only One, who is God', (some mss read 'the Only Son') who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
Yet the oldest known manuscript reads:
"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God {or God, the only begotten}, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known."
The phrase "the only begotten God" could point to the human birth of "a" divine-being or divinity {and in keeping with the full meaning of "deity" in the sense of how we say "God(-is-fully-divine)"}. Jesus as an 'Only Begotten God' isn't so troublesome for us if we see him as we normally do: as a member of the Trinity.
However, if Jesus could be seen as One of the many sons of God {ref. cit., Ps 82:6, and elsewhere in OT); and though he be uniquely chosen and sent; this presents problems for our normative or conventional way of thinking about "monotheism". This concept seems to kind of point toward Mormon or, perhaps, JW/Arian doctrine, doesn't it?
But if Jesus could have been echoing back to a no-longer-popular primitive theology ("doctrine of God") when polytheism or henotheism was normative among the Hebrews---a thing which Orthodox Jews deny was ever believed (and many Christians as well)---then this was what Jesus was referring to! If such were the case, Jesus' contemporaries would have been doubly-offended in that (1) the existence of more than one God = highly offensive to 1st century Jews, and, (2) the idea that one of the Divinities
{but not the actual Most High God Himself} could incarnate as a human was anathema.
Was Jesus really pointing back to days when the Hebrews were polytheists or henotheists? I think possibly so....
STEVE wrote:This is the crux as i see it Rick , which is making sense of Jesus's response which to me sounds like he equates "gods" similarly to the way Paul uses the phrase "sons of God."
It not the rabbinical tradition that really matters the most it's how Jesus uses this phrase to describe those who have received the Word of God.
Rabbinical interpretations are sometimes right, sometimes wrong (as Jesus himself either confirmed or rebutted them); I'm sure you would agree.
Many New Age People and some charismatics (I regret to say, being one myself!) interpret "You are gods" as "us." One popular tv preacher said we are all "little gods" (but who it was I don't recall; I heard whoever it was on audio on Hank Hanegraaff).
Other than this, Jesus' and Paul's teaching on how we people are, and/or can become, "sons of God" is something quite different than what Jesus was talking about in John 10:34-36, imo.
Christians, and not to be too overly critical of them/us! ... seem to avoid passages that speak of God as having many divine, angelic and/or "gods" as sons. I fully understand why: Such ideas are "inconceivable" to us as we were taught strict monotheism. They're foreign to us ... and one way to deal with that is to not-deal with that....
Paidion wrote:Justin Martyr quoted this verse in his Dialogue with Trypho, in the context of his ongoing declaration to the Jewish men to whom he was speaking, that there are two Divine Individuals who are properly called "God".
(Leaving aside Ge 19 for now)....
Yes, I've read Justin in a study of the "two powers in heaven" Jewish heresy. This heresy claimed that there was more than One "Power" other than the God of the Jews. The Jewish God was one of them...but not "both".
Some of these {Jewish} heretics were Gnostic, and it is believed the Christians were possibly, if not probably, included among these "two powers" heretics. I've never really thought about it before but, Paul's reframing of the Shema {Deu 6:4, 1 Cor 8:6} could "fit" a two powers Jewish heresy.
We've talked about it before: How the word "God" is used.
As I recall, certain phrases used by Justin to name Christ {I lost a bunch of notes on this in a computer crash!} could be understood to possibly mean something like "a God but not the Father" or "God, but not the Father-God". In other words, "two powers in heaven".
Lastly, I've been working on this post for almost 2 hours!
And though I do believe in the trinity, I am uncomfortable with saying "Jesus is God."
To me, God the Father {the Most High Himself, and perhaps "El"}; He is God.
At the same time, Jesus, His Uniquely Chosen and Incarnated Son, is "God" as in, also being fully divine....
I need a sandwich! Thanks for the study, brothers!
P.S. I could be wrong (on several accounts)...but right now, am hungry!
