— Edited

From time to time I get emails offering Exod 7:1 or Psa 45:6-7 as objections to my assertion that elohim in Psa 82  does not *mean* people. Neither of these passages changes the obvious interpretation of Psa 82 (that the plural elohim in vv. 1, 6 are gods). Aside from the fact that one has to: (1) make sure not to look at Psa 89 when thinking about Psa 82 [there is no council of humans in "the skies"] and ignore the fact that there is no biblical support for Jewish elders ruling the nations in the OT (!), both verses have internal considerations that mean they cannot be pressed into duty to deny the obvious in Psalm 82. In the case of Exod 7:1 ("the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet"), the text clearly does not claim that God made Moses God or a god. He's still Moses, the man. The point is that, when Moses starts displaying miraculous sign acts, pharaoh will think him a god. At any rate, *the passage pertains to Moses in that unique situation* -- it doesn't apply to all Jews across the board so as to circumvent the divine elohim view of Psalm 82. I would think this is obvious, but I get it. Second, in regard to Psa 45:6-7, the (alleged) problem for me is that the statement: “Your Throne, O God, is forever and ever” must refer to the Israelite king; and (again, consider the logic here) That the statement can apply to humans generally.    It may surprise some readers that the original orientation of elohim in Psalm 45:6-7 can quite coherently point to God himself (not the Davidic king). For example, Goldingay, an evangelical, noting the poetic structure of the psalm’s statement renders the passage this way:   5 Your arrows are sharpened—peoples are beneath your feet— they fall in the heart of the king’s enemies; 6a the throne, God’s, is yours forever and ever.   Goldingay then comments (I tried to underline some things, but they won't save -- see the comment about English translations reversing phrases):   “As the king acts in the pursuit of truthfulness and faithfulness, expecting to see God doing marvels, then opponents will fall before him. On any reading the order of the cola is jerky; [Many English versions] reverse some of the phrases to make the text read more smoothly. Verse 5 is yet another pair of four-stress cola, with the second clause in v. 5a forming a parenthesis; the “they” is the arrows. The declaration in v. 6a then closes off these comments on the king’s power. His victories reflect the fact that he sits on God’s throne (e.g., 1 Chron. 29:23), ruling Israel on God’s behalf, and destined to rule the world on God’s behalf (cf. Psa. 2). That in itself would make the king’s throne last forever. The fact that God made a lasting commitment to the Davidic king’s throne would also have that implication. It is a further reason for the king to go out confidently to impose truthfulness and faithfulness on the nations, and the fact that he does so victoriously is an indication that he indeed sits on this throne.   6b Your royal rod is an upright rod; 7a you have dedicated yourself to faithfulness and thus been against faithlessness.   I thus take vv. 6b–7a as a pair of parallel cola, reverting to the moral implications of that power of the king.”   Source: J. Goldingay, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Psalms 42–89 (ed. Tremper Longman III; vol. 2; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 58.   In any event, if one considers the term elohim as describing the king in divine terms as an adaptation of ancient Near Eastern thought, the term cannot be extended to anyone (really, every Jew in the view of those who oppose plural divine elohim in Psa 82!) who was not the king. Psalm 45:7 cannot justify saying the term elohim refers broadly to human judges or the Jews en masse. If you think I'm overstating the complaint, check out a half dozen commentaries on John 10:34-36, where Jesus quotes Psa 82:6 -- you'll find the "elohim are Jewish judges or all the Jews at Sinai who received the law -- and by extension all Jews" viewpoints. Psalm 45 is often use to prop up such nonsense -- and that view of John 10:34-36 cannot be reconciled with what Jesus says in John 10:30 and John 10:38. It undermines his claim to deity, but basically all NT scholars go that direction. Why? because they are ignorant of the divine council worldview of ancient Israelite theology. They never get exposed to it in their doctoral work (I can literally count the exceptions to this I've encountered on one hand). It's very unfortunate.

  2. it's very orienting - agreed. As a reader told me a while back, once you see it, you can't unsee it.

  3. Since talking to others about  the unseen realm one gets "push back". In Psa 82:1 the word "council" ( 132 x “congregation” 15 x “company” 1 x “swarm” 1 x “herd”) when comparing it to one in Psa 89:7 the word "council" is a different word meaning "divine council". The one in Psa 82:1 is that the only one referring to divine beings where the others the word "congregation" refer to people? Is this a exception?

  4. Paul and Michelle -- your other note sort of disappeared on the page (at least for me) and I wanted to say thanks for using the material!