Sons of God

I am presenting text from this article found here: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf


What I find interesting about this article is the discussion of the Divine Council, which parallels LDS beliefs.

"Although some may fear that to adopt the reading of LXX amounts to embracing the notion that Yahweh is the author of polytheism, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, a proper understanding of the concept of the divine council in the Old Testament provides a decisive argument in favor of the LXX / Qumran reading.

It is no secret that the Old Testament often reflects literary and religious contact between Israel and her ancient near eastern neighbors. One example of such contact concerns a "divine council" or “divine assembly” presided over by a chief deity.34 A number of passages in the Hebrew Bible depict God presiding over a council of divine beings, and these passages often describe the divine council's membership and function with precise terminology utilized in ancient near eastern literature for the judicial oversight of their pantheons over the cosmos. Of particular interest to the study at hand are the Ugaritic texts, since that language bears such a close linguistic affinity to Biblical Hebrew."


"The Divine Council in the Old Testament

One of the examples of the divine council assembled for deliberation in the Hebrew Bible is I Kings 22:19-23 (cf. II Chron. 18:18-22).36 I Kings 22:1-18 introduces the political alliance forged between Jehoshaphat of Judah and the king of Israel for invading Ramoth-Gilead, the rubber-stamping of the plan by four hundred prophets of Israel, and Jehoshaphat’s insistence on hearing from a true prophet of Yahweh concerning the matter. The king of Israel reveals that there is indeed a prophet of Yahweh, Micaiah ben Imlah, but that Micaiah never prophesies anything favorable concerning him. Micaiah is summoned, and at first he mockingly prophesies blessing for the invasion, but his duplicity is detected immediately by Jehoshaphat. This sets the stage for Micaiah’s genuine vision (emphasis mine):

19 Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' 22 'By what means?' the LORD asked. 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

In a scene that resembles Ugaritic council scenes, Yahweh is pictured as the chief deity,37 enthroned among the members of His council before directly addressing its members, who “stand” (a technical term38) before Him.39 The question asked by Yahweh occurs in a form paralleled in Ugaritic literature and other passages involving Yahweh’s presence in the Hebrew Bible.40 The omniscient leader then approves the course of action He knows will be successful, and the messenger (the “spirit”41 here, but often a prophet) is commissioned. It is not that Yahweh is lacking ideas, or that the members of the council exercise any actual authority, but rather that the council only
serves to “reemphasize and execute His decisions.”42 This is the same pattern as in the Ugaritic council texts.43 Micaiah in this instance is permitted to observe the deliberations of the divine “boardroom meeting” and thus pronounce with certainty “thus saith the LORD” as a messenger of the divine assembly."


A second example of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible is Psalm 82. Setting the Hebrew text44 in relation to the translation brings out the now familiar council language and the plurality of the Myhi$l)V in question:

1 God (Myhi$l)V) standeth in the congregation of the mighty (lae-td;[]B; he judgeth among the gods (Myhi$l)V).
2 How long will ye judge (WjP.v.Ti) unjustly, and accept (Waf.Ti) the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend (Wjp.vi) the poor and fatherless: do justice (WqyDic.h to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver (WjL.P; ) the poor and needy: rid [them] (WlyCihi) out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They (the gods) know not (W[d.y" al), neither will they (the gods) understand (Wnybiy" al{w>); they (the gods) walk on (WkL'h;t.yI) in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye [are] gods (~T,a; Myhi$l)V); and all of you [are] children of the most High (~k,L.Ku !Ayl.[, ynEb.W).
7 But ye shall die (!WtWmT.)45 like Adam,46 and fall (WlPoTi) like one of the Shining Ones.47

This psalm has generated much scholarly controversy.48 As many scholars who have tackled its contents have noted, the crux interpretum of the psalm is determining what Myhi$l)V means in verses 1b and 6a.49 How can God / Myhi$l)V be said to be standing in the council of God / lae in the midst of (a singular) God / Myhi$l)V ? It would seem obvious that the second Myhi$l)V (v. 1b) must be pluralized, but since this allegedly smacks of polytheism, many commentators have resisted the translation “gods.” Three major interpretations therefore exist for the Myhi$l)V of 1b and 6a: (1) they are Israelite rulers and judges; (2) they are the rulers and judges of the nations; (3) they are members of the divine council / divine beings. In reality, the latter two options are both correct, and must be combined for an accurate interpretation of the psalm.50

As Cyrus Gordon pointed out over sixty years ago, translating Myhi$l)V as “rulers” or “judges” is an option that lacks validity, and is an example of theologically “protecting” God.51 Since Gordon adequately chronicles the examples where Myhi$l)V is only speculatively translated as “rulers” or “judges,”52 and demonstrates in each example that such a translation choice is unnecessary, this paper will focus on features of the psalm that compel the conclusion that Myhi$l)V in v. 1b and 6a should be translated “gods” or, better, “divine beings.”53

Several external considerations point to verses 1b and 6a as describing the divine council and its “divine beings.” First, the fact that the Myhi$l)V in 6a are called NwOyl;(e yn"b2; is a strong argument for their divine nature, because NwOyl;(e is a completely transparent title for deity, in both Hebrew and Ugaritic. The word refers only to God / El in the Bible and Ugaritic religious texts.54 The point here is that the divine character of the offspring of El in the Ugaritic texts is beyond question. That the same descriptive appellation for those offspring are used many times in the Hebrew Bible of nonhuman inhabitants of the heavens makes the translation “human judges” nonsensical55 and requires ignoring the comparative semitic philology. Second, the terms and themes in this psalm are present in Ugaritic literature. Elyo4n, princes, gods, are all present in the Ugaritic poem “the Gracious Gods,” and it is quite telling that the notion above in Psalm 82:7 of the Myhi$l)v “falling” like “one of the Shining Ones” is found “in a specific episode of Canaanite mythology, in which the fall of one of the bn s/rm ("sons of the shining ones") of the heavenly congregation was depicted.”56 Third, the fact that the psalm speaks of rendering justice to the poor and needy does not argue for human judges, since the council terminology from Sumer, Akkad, and Ugarit “referred originally to the political organ of a primitive democracy, a phenomenon which can be discerned in the pantheons of various non-Israelite cultures.”57 Lastly, verses such as Isaiah 24:21 (“In that day the LORD will punish the powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below”) clearly distinguish between the divine beings of Yahweh’s host and earthly rulers.

Internal features of Psalm 82 place the argument that Myhi$l)v in v. 1b and 6a are divine beings and not human judges beyond dispute. Two recent articles on Psalm 82 have produced a number of structural proofs in favor of divine beings rather than humans.58 Two observations will suffice here:

1. Psalm 82:1 has a chiastic structure that compels the understanding that the
second Myhi$l)V refers to divine, not human, beings:
+p2o#$;yI Myhi$l)V brEqEb2; l)'-tdA(Jb2a bc2fnI Myhi$l)V
a b b a

2 The particle Nk')F in verse 7 indicates “a strong antithetical relationship with v. 6.”59 The presence of yTir.m;a' introducing the clause prior to Nk')F has been demonstrated to require a translation of roughly “I had thought . . . but.”60 The contrast is, of course, between the speaker of verse 6, Yahweh (who in either view is the only one who has the authority to render the death sentence for these Myhi$l)V ) and the Myhi$l)V of verse 6a – the word being in parallel to NwOyl;(e yn"b2; . Consequently, interpreting the phrase “you shall die like Adam” to be referring to human judges would contradict the contrasts required by the syntax. It would also require ignoring the parallel here with the judgment on Adam and Eve. The point is not that the Myhi$l)V were put to death at the moment Yahweh judged them, but that they must die as a result of their actions (i.e., they would become mortal).61 Moreover, it is patently illogical. As Smick noted, “if they are going to die like mortals, they are not mortals.”62 The immortality of those suffering this judgment is clearly presupposed.63


However, I posted the previous because it leads up to the next section, which has been a point I have discussed here on the forums.

"82:100
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

The point of this objection is that Jesus, by this quotation, is saying in effect that “since Psalm 82 has men being called Myhi$l)v , then I can call myself the Son of God and claim equality with God.” The presumed reference in verse 35 to the Myhi$l)v being the recipients of the law (which would require they be human) supposedly confirms this exegesis. Unfortunately, this is a textbook example where New Testament scholars, lacking any knowledge of Ugaritic or other comparative semitic data, interpret the Hebrew text via the appeal to Jewish tradition,101 or appeal to the previous generation of New Testament scholars who wrote before the discovery of the Ugaritic materials. Several points need to be made regarding Jesus’ use of Psalm 82, for His hermeneutic amounts to a powerful testimony to His own deity.

First, the presumed (traditional) argument actually does nothing to advance Jesus’ claim for deity, laid down earlier in verse 30 (“I and my Father are one”), for it amounts to Jesus claiming “I can call myself the son of God just like other men had the title Myhi$l)v .” The point here is that the alleged humans in Psalm 82:1b and 6a were still men, despite their designation as Myhi$l)v . One wonders where the power is in such an equation. Was Jesus merely arguing for a non-ontological title? This is hardly what He was asserting. This is no more an argument for the deity of Jesus than one could make for the deity of Moses from Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, where he is called an Myhi$l)v . Second, it is important to observe that nowhere in the passage is the law actually mentioned. It is an assumption – and a flawed one at that – that the “word of God” in verse 35 is a reference to the reception of the Mosaic law. In fact, there is no reference to the law in all of Psalm 82. In reality the “word of God” that came to the Myhi$l)v in question refers to the judgment rendered against them by the speaker (Yahweh) of Psalm 82:7: “But ye shall die like Adam, and fall like one of the Shining Ones.”102 Even if this text did somehow refer to the giving of the law, it would point once again to the Myhi$l)v in Psalm 82:6 being divine beings, for there is a definite connection in the Old Testament between the giving of the law and Yahweh’s divine council:

Deuteronomy 33:2 (NIV) - He said, The Lord came from Sinai, and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.103

By his use of Psalm 82:6, Jesus was not arguing that he deserved a title shared by other mere mortals. He was reminding his Jewish adversaries of the existence of the other divine beings – the Myhi$l)v - in Yahweh’s divine council. Their own Scripture affirmed the notion that Yahweh was not the only Myhi$l)v . To be sure, He was superior, but the point being made was that it was fallacious on their part to assume that Yahweh did not have divine “offspring”. Moreover, by virtue of the context of this quotation, coming as it did on the heels of Jesus’ claim to be equal with the Father, Jesus was in effect saying, “My Father has many divine sons – Psalm 82:6 testifies to this. Yet I am unique with respect to the sons of God. I am in fact above them, and am qualitatively different from them as the monogenh/j son of God." Arguing that Psalm 82:6 refers to human judges robs Jesus of a very pointed claim to deity.

The final objection to the reality of the divine council and its Myhi$l)v are passages like those in Isaiah that denounce idols and forcefully contend there are no other gods besides Yahweh.104 In fact, such claims are also present in Deuteronomy 32 itself (verses 15-18, 21). Since the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, the presence of such passages, particularly when juxtaposed with references to divine beings in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and 43, do not mitigate against the existence of the Myhi$l)v , but actually assumes their reality to make the point of the comparison. Nevertheless, how are these statements to be reconciled with the reality of the divine council?


.

what are your thoughts?

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked.
I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth
is attacked and yet would remain silent." John Calvin

Hello Ran,

Without trying to prove anything what point exactly arte you attempting to make? Just a short sentence or paragraph of your point.

Just looking at two related topics.

1. The Heavenly Council which LDS are routinely criticized for. This usually comes up when we discuss serveral verses in Genesis where Adam becomes one of us.

2. When Jesus said, "Ye are gods" He did not mean "judges" as our critics often claim.


Both of those are discussed in this article.

You should probably note the the sort of divine council envisioned in Canaan was nothing like LDS theology. And I don't think Israel's concept of God mirrored that of her neighbors anyway. If you want to think Israel conceived of God just like her neighbors then you must be prepared to say that El is the head of a pantheon. El is known for holding drunken orgies and going behind one of his sons backs to plot his destruction. That son would be ba'al. El has many sons of ill repute in his family. There is Mot, the god of death. There is Yam, a sea god. Ba'al a storm god. Israel however did not, or was not supposed to, conveive of their God in this way. So just be careful making conceptual connections between Ugarit and Israel. Not only that, but Ugarit was gone by the time Israel came into being, so you probably won't find really easy one-to-one correspondences with everything. Israel did have a concept of "sons of God" - it was themselves. Deuteronomy calls Israel God's sons as does Exodus. Is it an accident that Moses appoints 70 elders of Israel? I would say that Israel was known to envision God as King, and as King He had a heavenly court. I think most people today would consider these other beings as "angels". It's not a democratic council where a vote is taken and majority rules. The members of this heavenly court don't even make decisions. In the example in 1 Kings 22, the only decision the members make is between themselves as to who will be the one to go on behalf of God. God is depicted as being the Sovreign and everything else is under Him. The same type of deal shows up in Genesis 1:26 where God addresses someone else. However, only God makes the decision and in Genesis only God does the creative action. There are no proposals that God deliberates over with them. It's just His decision and it is carried out. It's not like a buisness where a presentation is made and the board decides or a congress where ideas are debated and one is decided over or voted over. God is also spoken of as the creator of the heavenly host, so these heavenly beings have not always been.


Also, the interpretation of Psalm 82 at the time of Jesus was that it was refering to leaders of Israel.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jimmie
USN

semper reformada

And now the interesting part of John 10. Basic questions first.

Who is the speaker? Jesus.
Who is the ideal audience? The Jewish authorities.

Who are the Jewish authorities? The Sanhedrin. Which ironically enough was composed of 70 members (plus one for a tie breaker). Now we see the Mishnah and the Targum's interpretation of Psalm 82. The Sanhedrin would have interpreted that as refering to themselves. They were the representatives and judges of Israel; the "sons of God". Now Jesus is engaging these guys in a polemic tactic. He is not trying to give an authorial intent hermeneutic to them. He is defending Himself and a claim He is making. He is claiming to have a higher status than them. Who judges or has a higher status or more honor the 70 of Israel? Only Israel's God. Jesus is saying He is Israel's God. He is not calling them divine, He is not supporting their worldview, He is not giving an Old Testament history lesson, He is not looking at it like a modern day American and giving them hermeneutical lessons. He is saying, "I am God" by making an honor and status claim. He argues from the lesser to the greater here. The Sages would interpret Psalm 82 as refering to the leaders because they were the vehicle of God's Word - the interpreters of Torah. Jesus however seemed to think He was in some sort of unique relation to Israel's God. How much more did He deserve to be called "God" if He not only was the vehicle of God's Word, but the incarnate Word Himself. They were vehicles/interpreters of God's Word, the Torah, Jesus was the Word. He was the judge over them; a position reserved for the God of Israel alone.

I think that is what He's telling them.

Interesting, thanks for the post. I am getting ready for bed right now, but later I want to look at this in more detail and compare it to the article you linked to.

You mean that the divine council didn't include other heavenly beings along with God?


The article indicates that El is the head of the pantheon. In as much as I presented this article for consideration, then I would say that what you have indicated is there. So, I'm not sure what point you are making. Please elaborate.


Similar is not identical.

I think perhaps they might be presenting that the El of the Ugartiric mythology could be based off the Divine Council. The comparison is for a head deity with a number of "Sons" that amount to 70. I don't see anything being said about the behavior you described.


Most people today might consider them angels, but I don't base my decisions or beliefs on what most people think.


And I have not made any claim that it is.


How is it that you can make a definative claim that they do, or do not? Is there enough information to be able to draw a reasonably accurate inferrence from what the Bible has to say about it?


That seems like a pretty big decision to me. And because only one is given does not make a very convincing case that it was the only decision they ever made. If anything, it demonstrates that decision making was within their ability and authority.


That doesn't conflict with what the LDS believe. And I don't remember seeing anything in the article that would dispute that view.


Which is ok, I have not claimed that the Divine Council is like a business, nor do the LDS offer than explanation.



He discusses that:

the Hebrew text44 in relation to the translation brings out the now familiar council language and the plurality of the Myhi$l)V in question:
1 God (Myhi$l)V) standeth in the congregation of the mighty (lae-td;[]B; ); he judgeth among the gods (Myhi$l)V).
2 How long will ye judge (WjP.v.Ti) unjustly, and accept (Waf.Ti) the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend (Wjp.vi) the poor and fatherless: do justice (WqyDic.h; ) to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver (WjL.P; ) the poor and needy: rid [them] (WlyCihi) out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They (the gods) know not (W[d.y" al), neither will they (the gods) understand (Wnybiy" al{w>); they (the gods) walk on (WkL'h;t.yI) in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye [are] gods (~T,a; Myhi$l)V); and all of you [are] children of the most High (~k,L.Ku !Ayl.[, ynEb.W).
7 But ye shall die (!WtWmT.)45 like Adam,46 and fall (WlPoTi) like one of the Shining Ones.47
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

This psalm has generated much scholarly controversy.48 As many scholars who have tackled its contents have noted, the crux interpretum of the psalm is determining what Myhi$l)V means in verses 1b and 6a.49 How can God / Myhi$l)V be said to be standing in the council of God / lae in the midst of (a singular) God / Myhi$l)V ? It would seem obvious that the second Myhi$l)V (v. 1b) must be pluralized, but since this allegedly smacks of polytheism, many commentators have resisted the translation “gods.” Three major interpretations therefore exist for the Myhi$l)V of 1b and 6a: (1) they are Israelite rulers and judges; (2) they are the rulers and judges of the nations; (3) they are members of the divine council / divine beings. In reality, the latter two options are both correct, and must be combined for an accurate interpretation of the psalm.50

As Cyrus Gordon pointed out over sixty years ago, translating Myhi$l)V as “rulers” or “judges” is an option that lacks validity, and is an example of theologically “protecting” God.51 Since Gordon adequately chronicles the examples where Myhi$l)V is only speculatively translated as “rulers” or “judges,”52 and demonstrates in each example that such a translation choice is unnecessary, this paper will focus on features of the psalm that compel the conclusion that Myhi$l)V in v. 1b and 6a should be translated “gods” or, better, “divine beings.”53

council and its “divine beings.” First, the fact that the Myhi$l)V in 6a are called NwOyl;(e yn"b2; is a strong argument for their divine nature, because NwOyl;(e is a completely transparent title for deity, in both Hebrew and Ugaritic. The word refers only to God / El in the Bible and Ugaritic religious texts.54 The point here is that the divine character of the offspring of El in the Ugaritic texts is beyond question. That the same descriptive appellation for those offspring are used many times in the Hebrew Bible of nonhuman inhabitants of the heavens makes the translation “human judges” nonsensical55 and requires ignoring the comparative semitic philology. Second, the terms and themes in this psalm are present in Ugaritic literature. Elyo4n, princes, gods, are all present in the Ugaritic poem “the Gracious Gods,” and it is quite telling that the notion above in Psalm 82:7 of the Myhi$l)v “falling” like “one of the Shining Ones” is found “in a specific episode of Canaanite mythology, in which the fall of one of the bn s/rm ("sons of the shining ones") of the heavenly congregation was depicted.”56 Third, the fact that the psalm speaks of rendering justice to the poor and needy does not argue for human judges, since the council terminology from Sumer, Akkad, and Ugarit “referred originally to the political organ of a primitive democracy, a phenomenon which can be discerned in the pantheons of various non-Israelite cultures.”57 Lastly, verses such as Isaiah 24:21 (“In that day the LORD will punish the powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below”) clearly distinguish between the divine beings of Yahweh’s host and earthly rulers.

Internal features of Psalm 82 place the argument that Myhi$l)v in v. 1b and 6a are divine beings and not human judges beyond dispute. Two recent articles on Psalm 82 have produced a number of structural proofs in favor of divine beings rather than humans.58 Two observations will suffice here:
1. Psalm 82:1 has a chiastic structure that compels the understanding that the
second Myhi$l)V refers to divine, not human, beings:
+p2o#$;yI Myhi$l)V brEqEb2; l)'-tdA(Jb2a bc2fnI Myhi$l)V
a b b a
2 The particle Nk')F in verse 7 indicates “a strong antithetical relationship with v. 6.”59 The presence of yTir.m;a' introducing the clause prior to Nk')F has been demonstrated to require a translation of roughly “I had thought . . . but.”60 The contrast is, of course, between the speaker of verse 6, Yahweh (who in either view is the only one who has the authority to render the death sentence for these Myhi$l)V ) and the Myhi$l)V of verse 6a – the word being in parallel to NwOyl;(e yn"b2; . Consequently, interpreting the phrase “you shall die like Adam” to be referring to human judges would contradict the contrasts required by the syntax. It would also require ignoring the parallel here with the judgment on Adam and Eve. The point is not that the Myhi$l)V were put to death at the moment Yahweh judged them, but that they must die as a result of their actions (i.e., they would become mortal).61 Moreover, it is patently illogical. As Smick noted, “if they are going to die like mortals, they are not mortals.”62 The immortality of those suffering this judgment is clearly presupposed.63

Well, I certainly won't argue with what you think it says. I disagree on the interpretation, but I recognize that this is what you believe.

I think it says, if you are gods then how can you find fault with me being the Son of God.

Thought I would revisit this topic and divide it up into smaller, more obvious chunks, that represent the various arguments which argue against gods being translated as leaders or judges.


1. God standing in the council of God, as a singular entity, does not make sense. He can only stand in the council of gods, multiple entities, that is comprised of heavenly beings.


2. The word used for gods is only used for God in the Bible, which is acceptable for an interpretation of heavenly inhabitant, but not for earthly judges.


3. The discussion of punishing earthly powers argues once again for an interpretation of heavenly beings and not mortal judges.


4. A chiastic structure argues against an interpretation of mortal judges.


5. It makes no sense that these gods should die like mortals if they are already mortals.


Hopes that makes it easier to respond to this portion of what the article discussed. I will try to do the same with the other portions later on.