• Is this a typo or am I missing something?
    When searching the OT for the lemma אֱלֹהִים I get these results which don't match what the book says. I'm wondering if it should read 2,600? logos4:Guide;t=Bible_Word_Study;lemma=lbs$2Fhe$2F$D7$90$D6$B1$D7$9C$D6$B9$D7$94$D6$B4$D7$99$D7$9D;wn=hot$2F273728:2
    1. Yes typo. It occurs 2,597 times in OT
    2. You might trying contacting Ronn Johnson since he wrote the study guide and not Mike Heiser.
    3. If you do a search for root.h:אֱלֹהִים using {god God, diety} then you will get 6,231 but if you just do a search for elohim {god, God, gods} then you will get 2,248.
  • The divine council material is useful when talking to Mormons (at least it has been in my experience). Since Yahweh is not just one among equals, that means Jesus (the incarnate Yahweh) isn't either -- which means Jesus and Satan aren't brothers. Mormonism focuses on divine plurality to make points like this, but it isn't clear thinking. I'm actually published in a Mormon theological journal critiquing their view of Psalm 82 (this was at the editor's gracious invitation). A Mormon scholar then replied to my article, and then I got to reply to him. A very profitable exchange. Below is the link to my article, which you may find useful when talking about the Bible with Mormon friends and acquaintances, but you can find all the articles online:
    1. Just wondering what you all thought about pp. 49-50 ("Earth was not Eden").Can you think of more implications? As I look at the verb subdue it “implies that creation will not do man’s bidding gladly or easily and that man must now bring creation into submission by main strength. It is not to rule man”.  Also we know there is a divine rebel that is waiting to bring spiritual chaos to the created order that would have need to be dealt with during the expansion of Eden till it looked like Rev. 21-22 Psalm 8: 2             Out of the mouth of babies and infants,             you have established strength because of your foes,             to still the enemy and the avenger  Also Adam would be the initial teacher of God’s Law for the expansion of the garden and setting up the government on earth as in heaven to extend the glory of God to the ends of the earth.         Oswalt, J. N. (1999). 951 כָבַשׁ. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 430). Chicago: Moody Press.
    2. Question :  When Satan was tempting Eve in the garden, was he tempting her to be like God Almighty (Elohim) or just a spirit being (elohim) small "e"?
    3. Hi Nathan: 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a]and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image,      in the image of God he created them;      male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (NIV) You are taking a narrow definition of abilities as being limited to bio-physical attributes observable in post-fallen humans. (Which means you are forcing that definition on the text; you are eisegeting your definition of "ability" into the text.) This passage does not define abilities as manifestations that are capable of being empirically measured. This definition is too narrow. For example, humans have the ability to learn any human language as infants, but most lose this abilities as we grow (i.e. if you follow the Chomskyan understanding of 1st Language development). Just because we lose this ability, doesn't mean that it isn't an essential characteristic/attribute/trait of being human even if some of us are born deaf, dumb, and mute. Likewise, we have the ability for abstract thinking, symbolic problem solving, introspection and self- awareness. While the results of such abilities are empirically observable, these traits, these abilities, these characteristics of humans aren't directly observable. They are inferred. Whatever scientists and philosophers say are the essential characteristics of what separates humans from the rest of creation are not explicitly evident and empirically observable. So limiting the definition of human abilities to empirically observed attributes, features, traits, or characteristics cannot be logically held because this would mean the social scientific and biological scientific definitions of humanity are also likewise eliminated: neurology, neuro-psychology, neuro-cognitive sciences, linguistics, anthropological, etc. They all infer essential characteristics based on inferences from the empirical data, not directly from empirical observation. They also all make a difference in drawing the distinction between essential characteristics from general and accidental characteristics that are observable with the naked eye. The essential characteristics are hypothesized as being encoded in our DNA which we can not see empirically--only mapped and theorized abstractly. So again, essential characteristics, attributes, features, traits do not have to be empirically observed in the sciences or in theology as your definition of abilities or attributes seem to imply. |------My point. What cognitive scientists and linguistics have postulated as being essential characteristics of humanity are, nevertheless, different from what the Bible itself says. Chomsky and Cognitive Scientists will say our conceptual abilities, including our language faculty and ability to think abstractly and introspectively (self-awareness), are what makes us different from the rest of creation. However, the Bible list our differences based on imperatives utter by God and God's blessings directed to humanity alone. This is why I wrote the following below from my original post. (IN THE GEN 1 DISCOURSE CONTEXT; IN THE GEN 1 PERICOPE) what makes humans different from all the other things and entities God spoke into existence is God's imperatives and blessings pronounced over humanity. Our essential attributes are found in the imperative and blessings spoken about/over us. (Everything in this pericope is about God's creative powers of speaking and blessing; hence, the distinguishing features of humanity are also couched in speaking and blessing metaphors--not in bio-genetic nor in materialistic terminology.) Our etiology (explanation for our origins/purpose) and theological anthropology are, therefore, combined. By undertaking a analysis that compares and contrasts what the agents in this pericope can do and/or have been commanded or blessed to do, we are left with the following regarding humanity. What does this tell us? WE HAVE ARTISTIC and OPEN-ENDED FREEDOM to rule, govern, and design[/order]. It tells us that we have creative and imaginative characteristics that we share only with God. Whereas the Sun and Moon’s realms have been micro-managed; God has simply delegated (spoken) that divine authority to humanity. God has given humanity the freedom to analyze and study, imagine and conceive, to innovative and to rule the Earth. God has displayed “Principle-centered” leadership for the earthly realm. To put it another way, our unique attributes (as listed in this pericope) are that we have been designed by God to fulfill a role and given the authority and (by extension) the ability (however, latent and marred by sin) to bring those imperatives and blessings into fruition and maturation through the second birth, second resurrection, and earthly rule of the new Adam. What God has commanded and blessed us to do will be done. Again, we are speaking to this pericope and not to OT theology or Systematic theology. We are proposing a deep reading of this pericope. Other readings that take in larger pragmatic/discourse contexts are still available.
  • It doesn't seem anyone has commented on any of the three discussion questions -- but maybe I'm not reading this page correctly. The "table" that shows up under discussions doesn't show a comment count, and I don't see any below. If I'm not parsing this correctly, please (someone) let me know.
    1. Dr Heiser, I'm giving this another look, on the "Discussions" tab, when I click that there is no text area for me to put any comments on.  I have another group of which I am a member there I can add a Discussion and also can see the text area.  So I think it is because I am only a "follower" and not a member.  Perhaps others who are members can help check this out.
    2. , Until I clicked on show more I thought your Psalm 82:2 quote was directed at Faithlife's not fixing the problem... which would've been hilarious! :) . Faithlife, thank you for all that you do.  I know it's a tough job.  We appreciate you guys.
    3. Nathan ha! you're right :-) Right now I don't know how to start a new post on here. Oops.
  • Just a note to everyone - Faithlife and I appreciate all the interaction. I'm not sure, though, that I'm seeing everyone's comments. I think I am, but I'm not sure.
    1. Hi Rush, is the post button grayed out? What browser and OS are you using?
    2. I get the message "The discussions for this group are not available".  Might be a setting.
    3. I am using Safari on MacOS 10.12.3
  • I'd also like to add a few thoughts about Jesus and the Angel of the Lord -- another question I get frequently. The angel of the Lord (Yahweh) in the OT is Yahweh in human form. Some of the things said about that angel (who is Yahweh) are applied to Jesus in the NT, thereby linking Jesus to Yahweh. The angel of Yahweh = the second person of the Trinity made visible as a man in the Old Testament. The man Jesus was  = the second person of the Trinity *become incarnate” as a man. The Angel of the Lord was not the second person incarnate (conceived in the womb and born of a woman). So, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord are related, but still distinct concepts — but both were God in human form. But only one was incarnate.
    1. Tim to insist as a popular SoCal preacher does and teaches that    "His Sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity....He is no ‘eternal son.’" Is that error or heresy ?  A few years ago D.A. Carson taught through The Book of Hebrews at Trinity and as I listened to him, I wondered how could my ex-pastor be so wrong when scripture is clear, but yet we still have that old heresy still alive and being taught today.  The case for eternal Sonship by D.A. Carson: “It is not that this eternal Word became the Son by means of the incarnation, so that it is appropriate to speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only after the incarnation, whereas before the incarnation it would be more appropriate to speak of the Father, the Word, and the Sprit. No, for as we have seen in Hebrews, the Son is the one by whom God made the universe. In John 3:17, we are told, ‘God did not send his Son into the word to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.’ It is fanciful to suppose this means that God sent into the world someone who became the Son after he arrived. ‘The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. . . . He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. . . . For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him’; indeed, ‘all things have been created through him and for him’ (Col. 1:15-19), making him not only God’s agent in creation but creation’s master and goal. In these and numerous other passages (e.g., Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 14:9; 17:1-8; 1 John 5:20), Jesus is not the Son of God by virtue of being the ultimate Israel, nor is he the Son of God by virtue of being the Messiah, the ultimate Davidic king, nor is he the Son of God by virtue of being a perfect human being. Rather, he is the Son of God from eternity, simultaneously distinguishable from his heavenly Father yet one with him, the perfect Revealer of the living God.”
    2. For Timothy - Here's how I put my thinking on this on moreunseenrealm.com -  The angel of the Lord (Yahweh) in the OT is Yahweh in human form. Some of the things said about that angel (who is Yahweh) are applied to Jesus in the NT, thereby linking Jesus to Yahweh via the angel. Consequently, the angel of Yahweh = the second person of the Trinity made visible as in human form in the Old Testament. Jesus = the second person of the Trinity *become incarnate” as a man. The Angel of the Lord was not the second person incarnate (conceived in the womb and born of a woman).   So, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord are related, but still distinct concepts — but both were God in human form. But only one was incarnate.
    3. This article is a great illustration of how to make a blog that is both amusing and educational. Your writing is easy to read and understand, and you back up your claims with engaging tales. I really enjoyed reading your post, and I found it to be extremely helpful. If you have some free time, please play https://catmario9.com with me.
  • One question I get a lot is that the New Testament says "no one has ever seen God (father)" but in my "two powers" discussion in TUR about  "Yahweh" & "angel of the Lord," the angel (whom I argue was Yahweh embodied) appears and speaks with people.  How are these two ideas to be reconciled? It's very obvious that the Bible says that no one could see the face of God and live (Exod 33:20; Deut. 5:24), but it's equally obvious that it reports that people did indeed see the God of Israel Gen 16:13; Exod 24:10, 11; Judg. 6:22; 13:22; Isa. 6:5). All these verses are from the Old Testament. Many Christians don’t think about this apparent contradiction because it seems to disappear after the incarnation—that God became a man, born of the Virgin Mary, in Jesus Christ. But the Old Testament doesn’t contradict the New Testament. Appearing as a man (sometimes in a physical body, as in Genesis 18, where Yahweh eats a meal) is not the same as incarnation, but is related to what happened in the case of Jesus. God did indeed appear as a man in the Old Testament, and that isn’t contradictory to what the Old Testament says about seeing the “face” of God. The key is understanding the Hebrew term “face” (panim) can refer to the Presence of God. The same Hebrew term (panim) may be translated “face” or “presence.” The Old Testament passages we’ve studied make it clear that the true presence of God—what God really is—cannot be witnessed. God’s panim has to be filtered, or mediated, in some way, both so that humans can process what (or who) they are experiencing, and also so they do not die. One of the ways the panim was filtered was human embodiment. God came as a man to people—a man they were allowed to see and speak to. Even when Moses asked to see God’s glory (Exod 33:18), God’s permission resulted in Moses seeing him embodied (Exod 34:5-9). But to reinforce the point that the panim was off limits, Moses could only see the back parts of the embodied Yahweh. The Old Testament writers make this point elsewhere. When people see the God of Israel, the writer omits saying they saw the “face” (Exod 24:9-11; Ezek 1:26 [cp. Ezek 10:18-19]) to convey the idea that no one could see the "direct presence" of God and live.
    1. Thanks Nathan.  Tried to listen. Dr Heiser is like fresh breath of air when he speaks but the other guy is just too long winded for me and I really think it could be shorter, I find it very frustrating.  I kept wishing Dr Heiser spoke more, but I guess he had to let his guest speak more. I gave up 3/4 of the way even after FFW some bits. Never mind.
    2. Sorry I was longwinded. I'll try to do better next time.
    3. Just ignore me my brother. I was probably impatient at the time :-)
  • Some of you will know I've been online since 2001 debunking nonsense about the ancient world -- stuff like ancient astronaut myths, wacky Bible interpretation, Bible codes, and Jesus myther stuff. The link below may be of interest. A lot of Christians out there think Wormwood (Rev 8:10-11) must be something like a killer asteroid. Nowadays, that idea is getting married to "Planet X" mythology. I was recently interviewed by a Christian show that embraces that stuff. You can have a listen at the link below, or read the content -- drawn largely from Greg Beale's Revelation commentary. Believer it or not, "Wormwood" has an OT and 2nd temple Jewish context we might want to consider before drawing any conclusons.
      1. Suzanne - please introduce yourself!  Looking forward to the event.
      2. Loved the Cambodia-Australia-Hawaii plugs!  Hey, maybe ...
      3. Thanks to Suzanne (hope this is the right Suzanne!) for coming to the Heber Springs event. I recall signing your book -- good to meet you!
    1. Many of you will know that there's a lot of chatter online about how the nephilim factor into biblical prophecy via Matt 24:38. I reject that view. I don't believe in any sort of nephilim presence beyond the biblical period, and don't believe that has anything to do with eschatology. Here's an email I got recently about this and my reply. It provides my reason for rejecting this idea. >> Question: What source is Jesus referencing in Matthew 24:38 when he says marriage? You point out in UR that the ANE polygamy theorists or wrong because the text never says marriage or wives. But then we get Jesus saying it was marriage. Is He referencing Enoch "wives" in the Hermeneia translation? Or is He clarifying what actually went down? >> My answer: >> The language in Matt 24:38 is not the LXX for Gen 6:1-4, so Matthew isn't referencing Gen 6:1-4. Here are the relevant passages with relevant English and Greek material. Mat 24:38 38 ὡς γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις [ἐκείναις] ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες, γαμοῦντες καὶ γαμίζοντες, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν, The phrase for "marrying and giving in marriage" is γαμοῦντες καὶ γαμίζοντες (these terms do not appear in LXX; the lemmas are gameo and gamizo, respectively). LXX Gen 6:1-4 (esp. vv. 2, 4) 1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ θυγατέρες ἐγενήθησαν αὐτοῖς. 2 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν, ὧν ἐξελέξαντο. 3 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός Οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας, ἔσονται δὲ αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτῶν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ἔτη. 4 οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ μετʼ ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς, ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος, οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί. Septuaginta: With Morphology (electronic ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), Ge 6:1–4. Translation: *And Noah lived five hundred years, and Noah fathered three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And it happened, when humans began to become numerous upon the land, and ⌊they had daughters⌋, 2 the angels of God, having seen the daughters of humans, that they were beautiful, took for themselves women from all whom they picked out. 3 The Lord God said, “⌊My breath will not at all reside⌋ in these humans ⌊for very long⌋ because they are flesh, but their days will be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 Now giants were upon the land in those days, and after that, ⌊whenever⌋ ⌊the sons of God visited⌋ the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants who were from long ago, the people of renown.  Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Ge 6:1–4. 1 Enoch 6:1-2 6 1* In those days, when the children of man had multiplied, it happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. 2 And the angels, the children of heaven, saw them and desired them; and they said to one another, “Come, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children.” 7:1 And they took wives unto themselves, and everyone (respectively) chose one woman for himself, and they began to go unto them James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol. 1; New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 16. The above Enoch passages in Greek: 6:1-2   1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅταν ἐπληθύνθησαν οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐγεννήθησαν θυγατέρες ὡραῖαι καὶ καλαί. 2 καὶ ἐθεάσαντο αὐτὰς οἱ ἄγγελοι υἱοὶ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἐπεθύμησαν αὐτάς, καὶ εἶπαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· Δεῦτε ἐκλεξώμεθα ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ γεννήσομεν ἑαυτοῖς τέκνα. 7:1   1 Καὶ ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκες· ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἐξελέξαντο ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας, καὶ ἤρξαντο εἰσπορεύεσθαι πρὸς αὐτὰς καὶ μιαίνεσθαι ἐν αὐταῖς· καὶ ἐδίδαξαν αὐτὰς φαρμακείας καὶ ἐπαοιδὰς καὶ ῥιζοτομίας, καὶ τὰς βοτάνας ἐδήλωσαν αὐταῖς. Ken Penner and Michael S. Heiser, “Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology” (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008). The point: Greek Enoch also does not have the lemmas of Matt 24:38. Consequently, Matthew isn't using a source (either LXX or Greek Enoch). There is no way to tell (much less prove) if he had Gen 6:1-4 or the Enochian tradition in his head when he wrote Matt 24:38. There is no textual evidence upon which to base that assumption. Linking Matthew 24:38 to the nephilim is not a text-based interpretation.
      1. Thank you for all that you do sir!
      2. you're welcome!
      3. Your view has much more biblical support textually from what I've seen Dr Heiser, thank you for your unbiased view!
    2.  — Edited

      I don't know if this content will show up correctly here. If not, go to http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/?page_id=10. Another question I get all the time is about how John 10:34-35 undermines my view of elohim. That is, people who argue that the plural elohim of Psalm 82 are humans attempts to utilize the quotation of Psalm 82:6 by Jesus in John 10:34. I would suggest that this text has been fundamentally misunderstood by New Testament scholars who approach it with little or no background knowledge of the divine council. Their view *undermines* Jesus / John's claim to his/Jesus' deity in John 10. Mine doesn't -- and honors the OT / Israelite worldview context of the psalm to boot. For a full treatment of this issue, listen to the episode (#109) I devoted to it on my podcast: http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-109-john-10-gods-or-men/ Briefly, the context of Jesus’ quotation is crucial. In John 10:30 he has just told his audience that he and the Father were one. Jesus isn’t going to follow that statement by essentially saying “I get to call myself God because you mere mortals do it too by virtue of Psalm 82.” That approach undermines John’s presentation in this chapter of the deity of Jesus, yet this is precisely the trajectory one finds of all the published material on John 10:34 and its use of Psalm 82. This backdrop is important for interpreting the significance of Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34-35. I have never come across the view I have of this issue in print, and so it seems best to give the full context of Jesus’ quotation in order to make my thoughts clear (John 10:22-42): 22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said to him, “How long are you going to make us doubt? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26 But you believe not, because you are not of my sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and my Father are one.” 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, saying, “For a good work we would not stone you; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.” The quotation of Psalm 82:6 follows: 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law: ‘I said, you are gods?’ 35 If he [God] called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 do you say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme!’ because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though you don’t believe me, believe the works: that you may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, 40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. 41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. 42 And many believed on him there. Here is what we can glean without interpretive disagreement: Jesus’ prefaced his quotation by asserting that he and the Father were one (10:30).  This claim was regarded as blasphemy in that Jesus was making himself out to be God (10:33).  In defense of his assertion, Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6. That is, to establish his claim to be God, Jesus went to Psalm 82:6.  He follows the quotation with the statement that the Father was in him, and he was in the Father. The consensus view of this quotation is that Jesus was endorsing the human אלהים view and thereby arguing, “I have every right to call myself divine—you guys can do it as well on the basis of Psalm 82:6.” The problem, of course, is that this amounts to Jesus saying “you mere mortals can call yourself gods, so I can, too.” If this is what John intends to communicate to go along with verse 30 to put forth the idea of Jesus’ deity, it’s an inept strategy. I propose that Jesus knew the elohim of Psalm 82 were not human, and that Jesus was in fact asserting his own unique ontological oneness with the Father.[1] The human elohim view derives from two assumptions brought to the text: (1) that it is required by the assumed impossibility of there being other elohim because of Judeo-Christian monotheism; and (2) that the phrase “to whom the word of God came” refers to the Jews who received the law at Sinai (i.e., the Pharisees’ forefathers).   I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to come to terms with what is meant by “the word of God” and who it is that receives that word in Psalm 82:6-7: I said, ‘You are gods (elohim ), even sons of the Most High (beney-'elyon), all of you; nevertheless, like humans you will die, and fall like any prince.’ The speaker (“I”) in the passage is the God of Israel, the God who is standing in the council in 82:1 among the elohim . God announces that the elohim of the council are his sons, but because of their corruption (vv. 2-5), they will lose their immortality. I believe that Jesus was referring to this utterance itself when he quoted the psalm, not the Jewish nation receiving the law at Sinai or the revelation that would become the Old Testament. To illustrate the difference in the views:   Common Interpretation /Jesus’ strategy assumes elohim are HUMAN:     The “word of God that came” = revelation from God at Sinai, or the entire OT “to whom the word of God came” = the Jews at Sinai, or the Jews generally. Result = the Jews are the “sons of the Most High” and elohim— so Jesus can call himself an elohim as well, since he’s a Jew, too.     My view / Jesus’ strategy assumes elohim are DIVINE: The “word of God that came” = the utterance itself in Psalm 82:6 – the pronouncement from God“to whom the word of God came” = the elohim of the divine council in 82:1Result = The Jews are not elohim, and Jesus reminds his enemies that their Scriptures say there are other elohim who are divine sons—and this on the heels of declaring himself one with the Father (John 10:30) puts him in the position of not only claiming divinity as a son of the Most High, but by claiming to be above the sons of God since he is one with the Father. In other words, Jesus appeals to sons of God who are MORE THAN HUMAN as his prooftext for defending his claim that, by calling himself the son of God he is more than a man (and that's very obviously the way the Jews took what he said). But by ALSO saying he was equal with the father (John 10:30) and that the Father was "in him" (see my discussion of the Name theology in Exod 23:20-23 for the backdrop to that phrase) and he was in the Father, he goes beyond claiming to be more than a man on equal par to the elohim of the divine council. He casts himself as Lord of the council -- God himself. As far as the consensus view, nowhere in Psalm 82 do we have any hint of the Mosaic Law, Sinai, a Jewish nation, or the canonical revelation given to the Jews. Every element in the commonly held view must be inserted into the passage. My view is that Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6 to put forth the idea that he was more than human. He reminds his Jewish audience that there were in fact other elohim besides the God of Israel, and those elohim were God’s sons. Because he calls himself the son of God and has in fact just claimed to be one with Yahweh, not only puts himself in the class of the sons of the Most High of Psalm 82:6—divine elohim—but implies that he is Lord of the council. This particular son of the Most High is one with the Father. The Jewish authorities got the message, too—they charged him with blasphemy. Now ask yourself, why would they do that if all Jesus was saying was “you mortal Jews get to call yourselves sons of God, and elohim, so I can, too.” That makes no sense at all. Again, for more. please listen to the podcast episode. http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-109-john-10-gods-or-men/
      1. Just what I needed, thanks Dr. Heiser, you've really been a great aid to me.