- This topic has 963 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
TT,
I would hate to live in a world that you created or ruled over. Thank God for that!
You have a fixation with Power. Careful that you don't make yourself into a Satan!
You have already made Jesus greater than God – and Called God “a God of Half Truths” – try not to further into the depth of sinfullness.
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 25 2010,04:23) TT, I would hate to live in a world that you created or ruled over. Thank God for that!
You have a fixation with Power. Careful that you don't make yourself into a Satan!
You have already made Jesus greater than God – and Called God “a God of Half Truths” – try not to further into the depth of sinfullness.
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” I have consistently said that Jesus is EQUAL with God. The words you falsely impute to me have never come out of my mouth.Too bad they don't give tiles for lying.
You have nothing left in your puny arsenal except false testimony. You'r choking dude!
thinker
Ah Terra, not so. Fruitless in one degree but I have also said that I have learned much from these confrontations.
They are the testing of my spiritual athleticism.
I sometime feel afraid to talk to God because of my sinfulness. I say “Sorry Lord, I can't talk to you now, I feel unclean in my spirit and am not in the spirit – if I say something I will be forcing it – Sorry Lord, I will put myself in a cleaner [spiritual] state with your help and then converse with you (Acknowledge this message through your Son jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour, Amen”
But that is passing away slowly and I can reach out to God easier to offer my sacrifice and honor and praise and glorify Him and his Son Jesus Christ.
It is a wonderfully fearful thing when the Holy Spirit speaks through you and you know that everything you have been learning is really REAL. Such comfort a, such fearful Joy.
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 25 2010,04:31) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 25 2010,04:23) TT, I would hate to live in a world that you created or ruled over. Thank God for that!
You have a fixation with Power. Careful that you don't make yourself into a Satan!
You have already made Jesus greater than God – and Called God “a God of Half Truths” – try not to further into the depth of sinfullness.
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” I have consistently said that Jesus is EQUAL with God. The words you falsely impute to me have never come out of my mouth.Too bad they don't give tiles for lying.
You have nothing left in your puny arsenal except false testimony. You'r choking dude!
thinker
Hi TT,
So you claim he is equal with God?
Of course he is not God then.Being given functional equality of course makes him less than the Giver.[Heb7]
Error correction: But that is passing away slowly and I can reach out to God easier to offer my sacrifice to God and honor and praise and glorify Him and his Son Jesus Christ.
Nick said:
Quote Being given functional equality of course makes him less than the Giver.[Heb7] If this is true Nick it is not from OUR vantage point. This supposed inequality of the Father and His Son would be a matter of their internal affairs.
All that matters to us is that Jesus is God to us.
thinker
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 25 2010,05:22) TT, I think it is you who has nothing left.
But all the same…
Just stop with the lies JA!thinker
TT,
“All that matters to us is that Jesus is God to us.”You wish for what you know not what?
This was the intent of Satan – should we try to replicate to Christ what Satan couldn't achieve for himself?
TT wrote:”Stop with all the lies”
Can you not just stop gracefully… are you so afraid that even when a thread has run it's course you still want to pursue it?
Amen.
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 25 2010,06:54) TT wrote:”Stop with all the lies” Can you not just stop gracefully… are you so afraid that even when a thread has run it's course you still want to pursue it?
Amen.
thinker
JA
YOU KNOW pAUL ALSO PREACH TO THE JEWS BUT AT ONE POINT I THINK THEY WERE LIKE TT',AND YOU KNOW HE STOPED ALL DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM.
Hi Kathi,
I want to thank both you and JustAskin for the kind words. I will ask the Father for guidance.
peace and love to both of you
mikeQuote (thethinker @ Feb. 25 2010,04:15) “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” You have no clue about biblical “representation” or “deputization.” They may entertain all your funny ideas in th UK (and I am not surprised). But we don't think like that where I come from.
Jesus wears the Father's crown as Joseph wore the Pharoah's signet ring.
thinker
Hi thinker,All things have also been put under Jesus, with the exception of God, who is the One who put all things under him.
Do you think Jesus is equal with God because he said “the Father is greater”?
Or is it because he said he could do nothing without the Father?
And do you think that Joseph could have told Pharoah's guards to arrest and execute the Pharoah? Would they have done it knowing Joseph had “all of Pharoah's power”?
Sometimes worship doesn't mean WORSHIP; sometimes all doesn't mean ALL; and sometimes everything doesn't mean EVERYTHING.
peace and love
mikeQuote (thethinker @ Feb. 25 2010,04:15) JA, Jesus wears the Father's crown as Joseph wore the Pharoah's signet ring.
thinker
Hi Thinker,Please display the verse where you get this 'idea' from?
Ed J
Hi Sis Kathi,
You seem to assume that YHVH is one person only, as opposed to two or three persons who are members of a fullness of God called YHVH.
For example,
Deut 10:17 tells us that YHVH is God of gods and Lord of lords. You seem to believe that only one person is both God of gods as well as Lord of lords. Why do you disagree with Paul in 1 Cor 8:6 who says that we have one God and one Lord and they are two persons?
I have shifted our discussion on the ‘God of gods’ and ‘Lord of Lords’ to this thread of yours.
Yes I find that Hebrew religion talks about one God Yahweh only. But as the critical scholars pointed out it had evolved from sort of Polytheism to Monotheism by the time of Jewish Exile to Babylon. The traces of this can be found in the verses Deut 32:8-10 and Psalm 82. Please refer my post on John 1:1 on this subject.
You have quoted Deut 10:17 in your post which also was quoted by me in my post on John 1:1. Here are few thoughts on this subject;
Deut 10:
17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe,
Plurality in the Designations of God
The use of plural forms in reference to God is not uncommon. In fact, two of God’s most common designations in the Old Testament—’Elohim (God) and ’Adonäy (Lord) —have plural endings, for example, “It is Yahweh your God who is the God (’Elohey, pl.) of gods and the Lord (’Adoney, pl.) of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome” (Deut. 10:17).Elohim
There are three different Hebrew words that are generally translated “God”: ’El, ’Eloah, and ’Elohim. ’El occurs 241 times, the majority with some additional title or modifier, for example, ’El Shadday, or “a God who hides Himself ” (Isa. 45:15). ’Eloah occurs 58 times, especially in the book of Job and in poetry. ’Elohim is the most common word for God occurring about 2600 times in the Old Testament. It is most likely the plural of ’Eloah. Referents such as verbs, adjectives, and pronouns are also plural in agreement, for example, ’elohim ’aharim (other gods) (Exo. 20:3; 23:13; Deut. 5:7; 6:14).Occasionally the “God of Israel” also takes plural referents. Three times ’Elohim occurs with plural verbs: “God caused me to wander” (hit‘u, where –u is the plural suffix, Gen. 20:13), “God had revealed Himself ” (niglu, 35:7), and “God went to redeem” (halaku—2 Sam. 7:23; cf. the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 17:21, which has the third person singular halak). There is one participle, “there is a God who judges” (shophetim, Psa. 58:11), and there are three different adjectives, “what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as Yahweh our God is” (qerobim (near) Deut. 4:7), “the living God” (Ýayyim, 5:26; 1 Sam. 17:26, 36; Jer. 10:10; 23:36; cf. the singular Ýay, 2 Kings 19:4, 16; Isa. 37:4, 17), and “He is a holy God” (qedoshim, Josh. 24:19). Perhaps there is some significance in these verbs and adjectives being in the plural, although most also occur in the singular elsewhere with “God.”
In 1 Samuel 4:8 non-Israelite Philistines use plural referents for ’Elohim: “Woe to us! Who will deliver us from the hand of these mighty gods? These are the gods that struck the Egyptians with every kind of plague in the wilderness.” The Septuagint translators also use plural, but the Tanakh (TNK) translation uses singular: “this mighty God…He is the same God who struck the Egyptians.”
However, most of the time when ’Elohim refers to the God of Israel, it occurs with singular verbs (over 300 times), adjectives, and pronominal referents. This is the so-called singular use of ’Elohim, which is used to distinguish the God of Israel from the gods of the nations, for example,
439 times, is counted. Almost ninety percent of the singular forms occur with the first person singular suffix ’adoniy, translated “my lord,” “my master,” or “sir.” A few times a divine being, usually an angel (sometimes appearing as a man), is addressed as “my lord” (’adon in the singular with the first person singular suffix—Josh. 5:14; Judg. 6:13; Psa. 110:1; Dan. 12:8; 10:16-17, 19; Zech. 1:9; 4:4-5, 13; 6:4). Occasionally God is referred to in the singular as ’Adon (Lord) mostly in the expressions Lord of all the earth (Josh. 3:11, 13; Psa. 97:5; Micah 4:13; Zech. 4:14; 6:5; cf. Psa. 114:7) and the Lord Yahweh (Exo. 23:17; 34:23; Isa. 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33; 19:4).
Of the number of times ’adon occurs as a plural form, only about eleven are true plurals. Most of the cases of the plural of ’adon are the “singular use” of a plural form. It occurs most commonly in the form ’Adonäy, used solely in reference to God and which has been interpreted as a plural form. It is formed by the noun ’Adon (lord) with the plural first person suffix –äy (a pausal form with a long ä vowel, distinct from the singular suffix form –iy (my lord) and the first person plural suffix –ay (my lords) which only occurs in Genesis 19:2, referring to an actual plural “my lords”). It seems that the Masoretes, who vocalized the consonants ’dny, understood it as a plural. This con- curs with the fact that most of the forms of ’adon are plural, apart from ’adoniy, which the Masoretes marked as a singular form, perhaps to distinguish ’adoniy from ’Adonäy, which was reserved to designate God as Lord. In addition, there are thirteen other occurrences of a plural form of ’adon referring to God (e.g., Psa. 8:1, 9; 147:5).
Plurality in Other Designations Associated with God
There are at least six other designations for God that sometimes occur in plural forms: Creator, Maker, One who stretched out the heavens, Husband, Holy One, and Most High. Once, God is referred to with a plural participle with a pronominal suffix as Creator: “Remember also your Creator (lit., Creators, pl.) in the days of your youth” (Eccl. 12:1). This is in comparison to at least eleven times in the Old Testament in which a singular participle of bara’ (to create) occurs with God as the subject. God is referred to using the plural participle of the verb natah (to stretch out) in Isaiah 42:5. Four times God is referred to as a Maker, also using plural participles of ‘asah (to make) with pronominal suffixes (Job 35:10; Psa. 149:2; Isa. 22:11; 54:5). In Isaiah 54:5 “your Husband,” bo‘alayik, is another plural designation, a plural participle, literally “your Husbands.” This is the only occurrence of a participle of this verb to refer to God. Perhaps there is a plural form ‘ozräy (my Helper, lit., “Helpers”) in Psalm 118:7, in a reference to Yahweh. However, some versions treat it as a plural “among them that help me” (Darby, see also KJV and Young’s Literal Translation). Three times the adjective qadosh (holy) occurs as a plural qedoshim, but is understoodThey forsook Yahweh, the God of their fathers, who brought (hamotsi’—singular verb) them out from the land of Egypt; and they followed after other (plural adjective) gods from among the gods of the peoples who surrounded them; and they worshipped them (plural pronoun) and provoked Jehovah to anger. (Judg. 2:12)
Adonay
’Adon occurs approximately 217 times in the singular and 556 times in the plural, if the form ’Adonäy which occurs ’Elohim is used approximately 224 times in its most expected and grammatical use, to refer to gods in the plural. By many to refer to God as the Holy One (Prov. 9:10; 30:3; Hosea 11:12; cf. Josh. 24:19). Four times in Daniel 7 the adjective ‘Elyon (the Most High) occurs in plural, ‘Elyonin in Aramaic, in the expression “the saints of the Most High.” The equivalent term in Hebrew is always singular. All of these examples associate plurality with God. There is some consistency in using plural forms of the verbs create and make, as in Genesis 1:1 ’Elohim (with the plural -im ending) created, and in verse 26 God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” This latter instance we will explore in the next section.Plurality in Pronominal References
In addition to these examples of plurality in God’s names and designations, first person plural referents referring to God are used seven times in four separate verses. These pronouns occur at four significant events in the Bible: the creation of humanity, the fall of humanity, the rebellion of humanity against God, and the commissioning of Isaiah. They are also associated with four different names or designations for God: ’Elohim, Jehovah ’Elohim, Jehovah, and ’Adonäy.In Genesis 1:26 three instances of first person plural pronouns, Us and Our, are used when ’Elohim says, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” The fact that the first person plural pronoun is repeated three times indicates that the plural pronominal reference is not accidental. However, in the following verse the narrator uses third person singular forms four times in his further exposition on the verse: “And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
In Genesis 3:22, after the fall of mankind, Jehovah ’Elohim says, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.” In Genesis 11:7 Jehovah says, “Come, let Us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” Twice the verbs of exhortation are first person plural. The first imperative habah (come) is, however, singular, although it seems to function as a frozen imperatival form. It is quite striking that in verses 3 and 4, where humanity collectively agrees to rebel against God and build the city and tower of Babel, there is the same structure in each verse, habah followed by two first person plural verbs of exhortation.
Finally, Isaiah states, “Then I heard the voice of the Lord (’Adonäy), saying, Whom shall I send? Who will go for Us? And I said, Here am I; send me” (Isa. 6:8). In this verse both the first person singular and plural occur together in close juncture.
Another striking matter related to these verses is that God is related to mankind corporately or collectively. After God says, “Let Us make man in Our image,” He goes on to say, “let them (pl.) have dominion.” Similarly, in Genesis 3 the man has become like one of Us refers to Adam and Eve and all of their descendants as corporate mankind impacted by the fall. In Genesis 11 God employs plural pronouns, using the same plural structures as those proposing the collective rebellion of mankind in order to thwart it. Finally, in the commissioning of Isaiah, a plural pronoun is used when God is looking for someone to be sent to the people of Israel to represent Him after their apostasy when they are distracted to worship the gods of the other nations. Isaiah is the first of the major prophets to be called. Through the prophesying of these prophets prior to, during, and after the exile, Israel becomes monotheistic not only in beliefs but also in practice.
The Significance of Plurality in God
There is debate among scholars as to the reason for and the significance of plural referents to God. Plural forms function in different ways in Hebrew. Plural forms are used to indicate more than one countable noun or sometimes more than two, since Hebrew has a dual form, which is, however, mostly used for dual body parts. Plural forms also are used to indicate the composition of a collective noun (harvested wheat grains compared to wheat as a substance) or to indicate extension, where the whole is considered by extension to consist of many smaller parts, like water. Abstract nouns are frequently plural, either to indicate qualities (knowledge, compassion), states (youth, old age), or actions (consecration, salvation). As a subset of either extension or abstraction, some consider that there are honorific plurals or plurals of excellence or majesty. Some consider God’s plurality a matter of intensity or majesty, “summing up the essential characteristics and intensifying the original idea, (Parke-Ta. Some consider the first person plural referents to God as plurals of majesty, examples of the royal “we,” but this is probably anachronistic and does not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament with kings.Some trace plurality in God to polytheism or the belief in many gods. These gods then became a unified godhead subsumed under the one name of YHWH. Some scholars consider that there was a development in Israel’s history from polytheism (belief in many gods) to henotheism (allegiance to one among many gods) or monolatry (selection of only one among many gods for worship) to monotheism (belief in only one God with all others considered false gods or not gods). Abraham did come from a polytheistic background, and it was not until post-exilic times that monotheism was fully embedded into the psyche of the people. However, it is doubtful that polytheism can account for all of the plural forms in the Old Testament and their continued use plural forms. Others consider the use of plural pronouns as part of “an address to the spirits or angels who stand around the Deity and constitute His council,” an explanation attributed to Philo (Keil and Delitzsch 62; see also 1 Kings 22:19). However, Keil points out verses that contradict the view that the spirits or angels took part in the creation of mankind, including Genesis 2:7 and 22, Isaiah 40:13ff, and especially 44:24.
Another reason for plurality could be what Cross calls the “plural of manifestations” (254). This refers to the multiple manifestations of a god, perhaps represented by various sites of worship. This is one way of understanding the plural forms of other gods also found in the singular, for example, Ba‘alim for Ba‘al and Asherot for Asherah and perhaps also the singular use of plural forms. Certainly there are a number of different manifestations or revelations of God in the Bible.
A number of these explanations have some merit. God is more complex than other beings, and there is some element of abstractness and mystery in Him. Polytheism may explain the origin of plural forms, but it is doubtful that polytheism can explain their continued use. God also manifested Himself on numerous occasions and primarily in three particular ways. An exploration of this latter matter, that is, the revelations or manifestations of God, will be helpful in understanding the significance of plurality in relation to God.
Hope this will help you. I don’t find any real plurality of God in Deut 10:17 unless we interpret them with Christian idea of God as quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 8:6. This is where I find our NT had deviated from its original source the Hebrew Bible. We can have healthy discussion on this subject here.
Thanks and peace to you…..Adam
The Most High God?
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is the most challenging passage to defend in the Bible.
Yes, I know it’s a somewhat obscure passage to pick out for that title, but, at least for me, I find it to be true. First, let’s look at the passage itself: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.”
But when you see the other translation like NRSV:
8 When the Most High[a] apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;
9 the Lord’s own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share.At first glance, this might not seem like such a controversial passage. However, if we look a little closer, we can see that the passage is clearly referring to two different gods: “Most High” and “the LORD”. This is most evident when looking up the verse’s original Hebrew, where “Most High” is called “Elyon” and “the LORD” is called “Yahweh”, who we all know is the God that Jews and Christians serve now.
When I was a child, I was taught that things like this occurred because God has many different names. However, if you study what most experts now believe about the early Israelites, things begin to make sense. The ancient Israelites were very likely polytheistic, believing in the Canaanite pantheon of gods and goddesses. The peoples in the Canaanite region, including the Israelites, believed in a god who was above all the other gods, “El”. They also believed that every nation had their own regional god. In the Israelites’ case, this was “Yahweh”.
So why is this the most challenging passage in the Bible? Well, at least to me, it appears to be the clearest reference in the Bible to the Israelites’ early polytheistic beliefs. If the Bible is the inspired work of the one true God, then why is there a passage in it that seems to so clearly acknowledge the presence of other gods? It even relegates “Yahweh”, the God of the Bible, to a secondary status, saying that Jacob’s people are his, but that the other peoples of Canaan belong to others.
In short, Judaism and Christianity are absolutely built upon the tenet that there are no other gods but Yahweh. But the ancient Israelites, from whom Christianity grew from, did not seem to share those beliefs. In fact, Yahweh himself did not seem to share them in passages such as Exodus 20:3 – “You shall have no other gods before me”.
What do you say?
Heiser, Michael, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?”
Introduction
The polytheistic nature of pre-exilic Israelite religion and Israel’s gradual evolution toward monotheism are taken as axiomatic in current biblical scholarship. This evolution, according to the consensus view, was achieved through the zealous commitment of Israelite scribes who edited and reworked the Hebrew Bible to reflect emerging monotheism and to compel the laity to embrace the idea. One specific feature of Israelite religion offered as proof of this development is the divine council. Before the exile, Israelite religion affirmed a council of gods which may or may not have been headed by Yahweh. During and after the exile, the gods of the council became angels, mere messengers of Yahweh, who by the end of the exilic
period was conceived of as the lone council head over the gods of all nations. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Psalm 82 are put forth as rhetorical evidence of this redactional strategy and assumed religious evolution. The argument is put forth that these texts suggest Yahweh was at one time a junior member of the pantheon under El the Most High, but that he has now taken control as king of the gods. Mark S. Smith’s comments are representative:The author of Psalm 82 deposes the older theology, as Israel’s deity is called to assume a new role as judge of all the world. Yet at the same time, Psalm 82, like Deut 32:8-9, preserves the outlines of the older theology it is rejecting. From the perspective of this older theology, Yahweh did not belong to the top tier of the pantheon. Instead, in early Israel the god of Israel apparently belonged to the second tier of the pantheon; he was not the presider god, but one of his sons.
1 Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 49.
2 Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second temple JewishThe focus of this paper concerns the position expressed by Smith and held by many others: whether Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32. This paper argues that this consensus view lacks coherence on several points. This position is in part based on the idea that these passages presume Yahweh and El are separate, in concert with an “older” polytheistic or henotheistic Israelite religion, and that this older theology collapsed in the wake of a monotheistic innovation. The reasoning is that, since it is presumed that such a religious evolution took place, these texts evince some sort of transition to monotheism. The alleged transition is then used in defense of the exegesis. As such, the security of the evolutionary presupposition is where this analysis begins.
Backdrop to the problem
In the spirit of going where angels—or perhaps gods in this case—fear to tread, in my dissertation I asked whether this argumentation and the consensus view of Israelite religion it produces were coherent. I came to the position that Israelite religion included a council of gods (אלהים (and servant angels (מלאכים (under Yahweh-El from its earliest conceptions well into the Common Era. This conception included the idea that Yahweh was “species unique” in the Israelite mind, and so terms such as henotheism, polytheism, and even monolatry are not sufficiently adequate to label the nature of Israelite religion. Those who use such terms also assume that אלהים is an ontological term in Israelite religion, denoting some quality or qualities that points to polytheism if there are more than one אלהים. This fails to note the use of the term within and without the Hebrew Bible for the departed human dead and lower messenger beings(מלאכים). Rather, אלהים in Israelite religion denotes the “plane of reality” or domain to which a being properly belongs (for example, the “spirit world” versus the “corporeal world”). For these reasons and others it is more fruitful to describe Israelite religion than seek to define it with a single term.
Questioning the consensus on such matters requires some explanation, and so the path toward consensus skepticism is briefly traced below via several examples where the consensus view suffers in coherence. These examples demonstrate that the consensus view has been elevated to the status of a presupposition brought to the biblical text that produces circular reasoning in interpretation.
First, Deutero-Isaiah is hailed as the champion of intolerant monotheism, giving us the first allegedly clear denials of the existence of other gods. And yet it is an easily demonstrated fact that every phrase in Deutero-Isaiah that is taken to deny the existence of other gods has an exact or near exact linguistic parallel in Deuteronomy 4 and 32—two passages which every scholar of Israelite religion, at least to my knowledge, rightly sees as affirming the existence of other gods. Deutero-Isaiah actually puts some of the same denial phrasing into the mouth of personified Babylon in Isaiah 47:8, 10. Should readers conclude that the author has Babylon denying the existence of other cities? Why is it that the same phrases before
Deutero-Isaiah speak of the incomparability of Yahweh, but afterward communicate a denial that other gods exist?Second, the rationale for the shift toward intolerant monotheism is supported by appeal to the idea that since Yahweh was once a junior member of the pantheon, the belief in his rulership over the other gods of the nations in a pantheon setting is a late development.
The consensus thinking argues that Yahweh assumes a new role as judge over all the world and its gods as Israel emerges from the exile. This assertion is in conflict with several enthronement psalms that date to well before the exilic period. Psalm 29 is an instructive example. Some scholars date the poetry of this
psalm between the 12th and 10th centuries B.C.E. The very first verse contains plural imperatives directed at the ליםִ֑א ֵניֵ֣בּ , ְpointing to a divine council context. Verse 10 ; flood the over enthroned sits LORD Theְ֭ (“יהָוה ַלַמּ֣בּוּל ָיָ֑שׁב ַוֵ֥יּ ֶשׁב ְ֝יהָ֗וה ֶ֣מֶל ְלעוָֹ ֽלם׃ : declares the LORD sits enthroned as king forever”).In Israelite cosmology, the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated over the solid dome that covered the round, flat earth. Since it cannot coherently be asserted that the author would assert that Gentile nations were not under the dome and flood, this verse clearly reflects the idea of world kingship. And in Israelite cosmic geography, reflected in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and 4:19-20, the nations and their gods were inseparable. The Song of Moses, among the oldest poetry in the Hebrew Bible, echoes the thought. In Exodus 15:18 the text reads: עדֶ ֽו ָלםָֹ֥לע ֖ ְמ ְי ִוהָ֥יה”) ְ The LORD will reign forever and ever”). As F. M. Cross noted over thirty years ago, “The kingship of the gods is a common theme in early Mesopotamian and Canaanite epics. The common scholarly position that the concept of Yahweh as reigning or king is a relatively late development in Israelite thought seems untenable.”
Lastly, my own work on the divine council in Second Temple period Jewish literature has noted over 170 instances of plural אלהים or אלים in the Qumran material alone. Many of these instances are in the context of a heavenly council. If a divine council of gods had ceased to exist in Israelite religion by the end of the exile, how does one account for these references? The Qumran material and the way it is handled is telling with respect to how hermeneutically entrenched the consensus view has become. As all the scholarly studies on the divine council point out, in terms of council personnel, the אלהים and מלאכים were distinguished, but scholars who do draw attention to the Qumran material say that this deity vocabulary now refers to angels. For example, Mark S. Smith asserts that later Israelite monotheism, as represented by Second Isaiah, “reduced and modified the sense of divinity attached to angels” so that words like אלים in the Dead Sea Scrolls must refer to mere angels or heavenly powers “rather than full-fledged deities.”
Handy also confidently states that “by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . the word אלהים was used even by contemporary authors to mean ‘messengers,’ or what we call ‘angels,’ when it was not used to refer to Yahweh . . . these אלהים ,previously understood as deities, had come to be understood as angels.”But why must these terms refer to angels? Whence does this assurance emerge? Why does the same vocabulary mean one thing before the exile but another after? A tagged computer search of the Dead Sea Scrolls database reveals there are no lines from any Qumran text where a “deity class” term (אלהים /אלים]בני ([for a member of the heavenly host overlaps with the word מלאכים ,and so the conclusion is not data-driven. In fact, there are only eleven instances in the entire Qumran corpus where these plural deity terms and מלאכים occur within fifty words of each other. Scholars like C. Newsom, trying to account for the data, refer to these deities as “angelic elim,” a term that is oxymoronic with respect to the tier members of the divine council.
It is difficult to discern what else guides such a conclusion other than the preconception of a certain trajectory toward intolerant monotheism. Such reasoning unfortunately assumes what it seeks to prove. The plural deity words in texts composed after the exile cannot actually express a belief in a council of gods, because that would result in henotheism or polytheism. Rather, the word must mean “angels,” because that would not be henotheism or polytheism. The consensus reconstruction becomes the guiding hermeneutic.
Yahweh and El, or Yahweh-El in Psalm 82?
Psalm 82:1 is a focal point for the view that the tiers of the divine council collapsed in later Israelite religion.
God stands in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.
א ִ֗הים ִנָ֥צּב ַבֲּעַדת־ֵ֑אל
ְבֶּ֖קֶרב ֱא ִ֣הים ִי ְשׁ ֽ ֹפּט׃S. Parker in his “The Beginning of the Reign of God – Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy” states that, while “there is no question that the occurrences of elohim in verses 1a, 8 refer (as usually in the Elohistic psalter) to Yahweh,” and that “most scholars assume that God, that is Yahweh, is presiding over the divine council,” Yahweh is actually just “one of the assembled gods under a presiding El or Elyon.” Parker supports his conclusion by arguing that noting that the verb נצב”) stand”) in 82:1 denotes prosecution, not presiding, in legal contexts.
Psalm 82, then, depicts the high god El presiding over an assembly of his sons. Yahweh, one of those sons, accuses the others of injustice. His role is prosecutorial, not that of Judge. That role belongs to El. The fact that Yahweh is standing, which means he is not the presiding deity, alerts us to Yahweh’s inferior status.
Continuing with Parker’s interpretation of Psalm 82, the accusation that follows in verses 2-5 is uttered by Yahweh, the prosecutorial figure:“How long will you judge unjustly,
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
ַעד־ָמַ֥תי ִתּ ְשׁ ְפּטוּ־ָ֑עֶול
וּ ְפֵ֥ני ְ ֝ר ָשִׁ֗עים ִתּ ְשׂאוּ־ֶ ֽסָלה׃
Render justice to the weak and the fatherless;
Vindicate the afflicted and the destitute.
ִשׁ ְפטוּ־ַ֥דל ְוָי֑תוֹם
ָעִ֖ני ָוָ֣רשׁ ַה ְצִ ֽדּיקוּ׃
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
ַפּ ְלּטוּ־ַ֥דל ְוֶא ְב֑יוֹן
ִמַ֖יּד ְר ָשִׁ֣עים ַהִ ֽצּילוּ׃
They have neither knowledge nor understanding;
they walk around in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
֤ל ֹאָ ֽי ְד ֨עוּ׀ ְו ֥ל ֹא ָי ִ֗בינוּ
ַבֲּחֵשָׁ֥כה ִי ְתַהָ֑לּכוּ
ִ֝י ֗מּוֹטוּ ָכּל־ ֥מוֹ ְסֵדי ָ ֽאֶרץ׃These charges are immediately followed by the judicial sentencing, also considered to
come from Yahweh:I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
אִני־ָ֭אַמְר ִתּי ֱא ִ֣הים ַאֶ֑תּם
וּ ְבֵ ֖ני ֶע ְל֣יוֹן ֻכּ ְלֶּ ֽכם׃
nevertheless, like humankind you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
ָ֭אֵכן ְכָּאָ֣דם ְתּמוּ֑תוּן
וּ ְכַאַ֖חד ַה ָשִּׂ֣רים ִתּ ֽ ֹפּלוּ׃To this point, Yahweh issues the charge and pronounces the sentence. No explanation is offered as to why, in the scene being created, the presumably seated El does not pronounce the sentence. In this reconstruction of the psalm, El apparently has no real function. He is supposed to be declaring the sentence, but the text does not have him doing so. At this juncture, Yahweh takes center stage again in the scene. Smith, whose interpretation is similar to Parker’s, notes that, “[A] prophetic voice emerges in verse 8, calling for God (now called elohim) to assume the role of judge over all the earth. . . . Here Yahweh in effect is asked to assume the job of all the gods to rule their nations in addition to Israel.” Parker concurs that after Yahweh announces the fate of the gods, “the psalmist then balances this with an appeal to Yahweh to assume the governance of the world.”
Psalm 82:8 reads:
Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!
קוָּ֣מה ֱ֭א ִהים ָשׁ ְפָ ֣טה ָהָ֑אֶרץ
ִ ֽכּי־ַאָ֥תּה ִ֝תְנַ֗חל ְבָּכל־ַהגּוִֹ ֽים׃Note Parker’s words in the preceding quotation closely. In Psalm 82:8 he has the psalmist appealing to Yahweh, called הים ִא ֱ֭in the Elohistic psalter, to rise up (מהָ֣קוּ (to assume governance of the world. This is considered the lynchpin to the argument that there are two deities in this passage, but it appears in reality to be the unraveling of that position. If the prophetic voice now pleads for Yahweh to rise up and become king of the nations and their gods, the verb choice (מהָ֣קוּ” ;rise up”) means that, in the council context of the psalm’s imagery, Yahweh had heretofore been seated. It is actually Yahweh who is found in the posture of presiding, not El. El is in fact nowhere present in 82:8. If it is critical to pay close attention to posture in verse 1, then the same should be done in verse 8. Doing so leads to the opposite conclusion for which Parker argues.
It is more coherent to have Yahweh as the head of the council in Psalm 82 and performing all the roles in the divine court. The early part of the psalm places Yahweh in the role of accuser; midway he sentences the guilty; finally, the psalmist wants Yahweh to rise and act as the only one who can fix the mess described in the psalm.
This alternative is in agreement with early Israelite poetry (Psalm 29:10; Exodus 15:18) that has Yahweh ruling from his seat on the waters above the fixed dome that covers all the nations of the earth and statements in Deuteronomy and First Isaiah that Yahweh is האלהים over all the heavens and the earth and all the nations.
It is also in concert with equations of Yahweh and El in the pre-exilic Deuteronomistic material like 2 Samuel 22:32 (והָ֑יה ְדיֵ֣עֲל ְבַּמ ִאלֵ ֖מי־ ִכּי” ;ִ֥For who is El but Yahweh?”). Finally, it fits cohesively with the
observation made by Smith elsewhere that the archaeological data shows that Asherah came to be considered the consort of Yahweh by the eighth century B.C.E. To quote Smith, “Asherah, having been a consort of El, would have become Yahweh’s consort . . . only if these two gods were identified by this time.”This means that El and Yahweh would have been merged in the high God position in the pantheon by the eighth century B.C.E., begging the question as to why, at least two centuries later, there was a rhetorical need to draw attention to Yahweh as high sovereign.
Yahweh and El, or Yahweh-El in Deuteronomy 32:8-9?
Ultimately, the notion that El and Yahweh are separate deities in Psalm 82 must garner support from Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which most scholars see as pre-dating and influencing Psalm 82. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 reads:
When the Most High gave the nations as an inheritance, בַּהְנֵ֤חל ֶע ְלי ֙וֹן גּוִֹ֔ים when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of [the sons of God].
ְבַּה ְפִרי֖דוֹ ְבֵּ ֣ני ָאָ֑דם
ַיֵצּ ֙ב ְגֻּב֣ ת ַע ִ֔מּים
ְל ִמ ְסַ֖פּר [ בני האלהים]׃
But the LORD’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.
ִ֛כּי ֵ֥חֶלק ְיהָ֖וֹה ַע֑מּוֹ
ַיֲע ֖קֹב ֶ֥חֶבל ַנֲחָל ֽתוֹ׃The importance of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 for the view that Psalm 82 contains hints of an older polytheistic theology where El and Yahweh were separate deities is stated concisely by Smith:
The texts of the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls show Israelite polytheism which focuses on the central importance of Yahweh for Israel within the larger scheme of the world; yet this larger scheme provides a place for the other gods of the other nations in the world. Moreover, even if this text is mute about the god who presides over the divine assembly, it does maintain a place for such a god who is not Yahweh. Of course, later tradition would identify the figure of Elyon with Yahweh, just as many scholars have done. However, the title of Elyon (“Most High”) seems to denote the figure of El, presider par excellence not only at Ugarit but also in Psalm 82. That the text of LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls is superior to MT in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is not in dispute. At issue is the notion that the title Elyon in verse 8 must refer to El
rather than to Yahweh of verse 9. There are several reasons why separating Yahweh and El here does not appear sound.First, the literary form of Deuteronomy 32 argues against the idea that Yahweh is not the Most High in the passage. It has long been recognized that a form-critical analysis of Deuteronomy 32 demonstrates the predominance of the lawsuit, or ריב pattern. An indictment (32:15-18) is issued against Yahweh’s elect people, Israel, who had abandoned their true Rock (32:5-6; identified as Yahweh in 32:3) and turned to the worship of the other gods who were under Yahweh’s authority. The judge—Yahweh in the text of Deuteronomy 32—then passes judgment (32:19-29).21 The point is this: as with Psalm 82, the straightforward understanding of the text is that Yahweh is presiding over the lawsuit procedures and heavenly court.
Second, the separation of El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 in part depends on the decision to take the כי of 32:9 as adversative, thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon of 32:8 and Yahweh of 32:9 (“However [כי ,[Yahweh’s portion is his people . . .”).
Other scholars, however, consider the כי of 32:9 to be emphatic: “And lo [כי ,[Yahweh’s portion is his people . . .” Other scholars accept the adversative use but do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage. Since scholarship on this construction lacks consensus, conclusions based on the adversative syntactical choice are not secure.
Third, Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title “Most High” (‘lyn or the shorter ‘l ) is never used of El in the Ugaritic corpus. In point of fact it is Baal, a second-tier deity, who twice receives this title as the ruler of the gods. The point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence of the term עליון certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Due to the well-established attribution of Baal epithets to Yahweh, the title עליון could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. It is also worth recalling that if Smith is correct that Yahweh and El were merged by the 8th century B.C.E. due to the transferal of Asherah to Yahweh as consort, then a Yahweh-El fusion had occurred before Deuteronomy
was composed. Hence it would have been natural for the author of Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head of the divine council. Indeed, what point would the Deuteronomic author have had in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected two hundred years prior?Fourth, although עליון is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible, as Miller and Elnes point out, it is most often an epithet of Yahweh.27 Smith and Parker are of course well aware of this, but attribute it to “later tradition,” contending that, in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 the title of Elyon should be associated with El distinct from Yahweh. Again, this would be most curious if Yahweh and El had been fused as early as the eighth century. In this regard, it is interesting that other texts as early as the eighth century speak of Yahweh performing the same deeds credited to עליון in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. For example, Isaiah 10:13 has Yahweh in control of the boundaries (גבולות (of the nations.28 It appears that the presupposition of an early Yahweh and El separation requires the exegete to argue for “a later tradition” at this point.
Fifth, separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy at large. This assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses, Deuteronomy 32:6-7. Those two verses attribute no less than five well recognized El epithets to Yahweh, demonstrating that the redactors who fashioned Deuteronomy recognized the union of El with Yahweh, as one would expect at this point in Israel’s religion:
Is this how you repay the LORD,
O foolish and senseless people?
Is he not your father, who created you?
ֲה־ַלְיהָו ֙ה ִתְּג ְמלוּ־֔זֹאת
ַ֥עם ָנָ ֖בל ְו֣ל ֹא ָחָ֑כם
ֲהלוֹא־הוּ ֙א ָאִ֣בי ָקֶּ֔נWho made you and established you?
֥הוּא ָ ֽע ְשׂ ֖ ַ ֽוְיכֹ ְנֶ ֽנ ׃
Remember the days of old;
Consider the years of past generations;
Ask your father, and he will inform you,
Your elders, and they will tell you.
ְזכֹ ֙ר ְי ֣מוֹת עוָֹ֔לם
ִ֖בּינוּ ְשׁ֣נוֹת דּוֹר־ָו֑דוֹר
ְשַׁ֤אל ָאִ֙בי ֙ ְוַיֵ֔גְּד
ְזֵקֶ֖ני ְו֥י ֹא ְמרוּ ָ ֽל ׃These verses clearly contain elements drawn from ancient descriptions of El and attribute them to Yahweh. At Ugarit El is called ‘ab’ adm (“father of mankind”) and tr ‘il’ abh ‘il’ mlk dyknnh (“Bull El his father, El the king who establishes him”). Yahweh is described as the “father” ( ביִ֣א (ָwho “established you” ( נֶ ֽנֹ ְיכ ְו .(ַ ֽYahweh is also the one who “created” Israel ( נֶ֔קּ (ָin verse six. The root *qny denoting El as creator is found in the Karatepe inscription’s appeal to ‘l qn’ rs (“El, creator of the earth”). At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet ‘qny w’ adn ‘ilm (“creator and lord of the gods”), and Baal calls El qnyn (“our creator”). Genesis 14:19, 22 also attributes this title to El. Deut 32:7 references the לםָ֔עוֹ מוֹת ֣י”) ְages past”) and דוֹר֑וָדּוֹר־ נוֹת֣שׁ”) ְthe years of many generations”) which correspond, respectively, to El’s description (‘lm) and title ‘ab snm (“father of years”) at Ugarit.
Since the El epithets of Deuteronomy 32:6-7 are well known to scholars of Israelite religion, those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 are left to explain why the redactor of verses 6-7 would unite Yahweh and El and in the next stroke separate them. Those who crafted the text of Deuteronomy 32 would have either expressed diametrically oppositional views of Yahweh’s status in consecutive verses, or have allowed a presumed original separation of Yahweh and El to stand in the text—while adding verses 6-7 in which the names describe a single deity. It is difficult to believe that the scribes
were this careless, unskilled, or confused. If they were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential confusion to have been quickly removed.Last, but not least in importance, the idea of Yahweh receiving Israel as his allotted nation from his Father El is internally inconsistent in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 4:19-20, a passage recognized by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 32:8-9, the text informs us that it was Yahweh who “allotted” (חלק (the nations to the host of heaven and who “took” (לקח (Israel as his own inheritance (cf. Deuteronomy 9:26, 29; 29:25). Neither the verb forms nor the ideas are passive. Israel was not given to Yahweh by El, which is the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32 want to fashion. In view of the close relationship of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 to Deuteronomy 4:19-20, it is more
consistent to have Yahweh taking Israel for his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord of the council.Conclusion
The goal of this article was to critique the coherence of what have become broadly accepted interpretations of Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9. These interpretations and the argument for the evolution of Israelite religion that presupposes those interpretations have a number of incongruities for which to account. The issues are important in the effort to describe Israelite religion’s view of God at all stages.
Hi Adam,
You: However, if we look a little closer, we can see that the passage is clearly referring to two different gods: “Most High” and “the LORD”.
Me: That’s what the lying freemasons are saying. There are no two different gods.
2 Samuel 22:14 Yahweh thundered from heaven. The Most High uttered his voice.
Isaiah 45:5 I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Besides me, there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not known me;
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
