In fact the solution I presented is irrefutable given the audience and context.
Nope. Irrefutable in your mind, and irrefutable in reality are two different things.
The audience is Jews -- believers in the OT.
The false accusation they make against Christ is that He is guilty of blasphemy.
Yes the audience Jesus is talking to is Jews who believe in the OT. This adds nothing at all to your case.
Yes the false accusation they made against him was blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God, equal with God. Again, this is not in dispute and adds nothing to your case.
Christ points out that God Himself refers to Israel as "sons of the Most High" and given that fact - they are in no position to charge Him with blasphemy for using that term. in fact even expanding this to apply to all humans does not change the point of Christ's argument.
This is the logical fallacy known as begging the question. You are assuming your conclusion to be true in your premises. The question being debated is "does God refer to Israel as "sons of the Most High", thus you can't assume that he does as one of the premises of your argument.
The second portion of this is also very weak.
If I claim to be the unique Son of God who is co-equal with God, and you tell me I'm insane for claiming that, if I turn around and say "you can't say I'm insane for saying that, because God said we are all sons of God." I'm denying my own claim.
There is no point whatsoever in saying "I'm THE Son of God, but don't worry about it because we're all sons of God."
2 How long will you judge unjustly
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
Save them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know nor do they understand;
They walk around in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High.
7 Nevertheless you will die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”
8 Arise, God, judge the earth!
For You possess all the nations.
You left off the first verse. Here it is the ESV translation
God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
The first verse makes it abundantly clear exactly what is going on, and who God is talking to. He is in the Divine Council, in heaven. He is talking to the elohim (gods) who we today would call angels.
Also... if I were to grant that he is talking to mere human beings here the next question would be... why is there punishment that they will die like.... human beings? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Regarding this point...
8 Arise,
God, judge the earth!
For You possess all the nations.
[/QUOTE]
This makes perfect sense when you consider that the Divine Council was given charge over the nations of the earth.
Consider Deuteronomy 32:8-9
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
9 But the Lord's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.
We know from Genesis 10 that this number was 70. There were specifically 70 elohim, sons of God, part of the Divine Council who were given charge over the nations.
We also see this in Daniel chapter 10 when the angel Gabriel tells Daniel that the Prince of Persia withstood Gabriel and prevented him from delivering his message for 20 days. He also mentions that the Prince of Greece is coming to fight with them.
What the Psalmist is saying with this...
8 Arise,
God, judge the earth!
For You possess all the nations.
[/QUOTE]
Is a prayer to God to rise up and judge the fallen gods that rule over the pagan nations. He is saying they rule now, but the nations belong to you, so arise and judge them.
No. Not only is it not inescapable, it's not even very convincing. I will admit that your interpretation is possible, it's not completely denied by the text. It has also been held by many intelligent people, and is still the dominant position. However, it is not the only possible interpretation that fits with the text, and in my opinion, I don't think it is convincing.
Before we move on I want to examine another point in Daniel, specifically chapter 7 because it bears on this conversation and on the Divine Council.
Daniel 7:9-10 and 13-14
9 “As I looked,
thrones were placed,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat;
his clothing was white as snow,
and the hair of his head like pure wool;
his throne was fiery flames;
its wheels were burning fire.
10 A stream of fire issued
and came out from before him;
a thousand thousands served him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him;
the court sat in judgment,
and the books were opened.
13 “I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14 And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.
One of the things that hinders understanding of many on this and similar topics is that they have a false image of what the Jews actually believed. In this passage from Daniel there is something that was shocking to the Jewish world and is a scandal to this very day.
The phrase "son of man" is a simple Hebrew idiom that just means "human". To say that someone is a son of man, means that person is human.
What Daniel says here is that he saw the Divine Council set up in heaven. Thrones were brought out for the members of the council and then God himself, the Ancient of Days comes and takes his seat. He renders judgement.
Then, a human being comes into the divine council, riding on the clouds! He comes before God and is presented to God. Then God gives him dominion, glory, all the nations will serve him, and he will reign forever.
Perhaps the most shocking thing here to the Jewish mind is that the son of man is described as riding on the clouds of heaven. This was a divine descriptor in the OT. This was how the Canaanites described Baal. This was how other Pagans described their sky god. The Israelites in turn took that image and said no, it is Yahweh who rides on the clouds of heaven.
So here, to the ancient Jewish mind this is essentially saying there is a human man here who is in heaven, and who is God.
We know that the Jews realized the shocking nature of this passage because there are writings from before the time of Jesus where the Jews are speculating about who this son of man could possibly be. Some thought Jacob, some thought various other patriarchs or prophets. But they knew, before the time of Jesus that there was a man who would be in the Divine Council, and who would be God.
This character the "Son of Man" also shows up in the Book of Enoch (written probably around 200 to 300 years before Jesus and well known among the Jews. In this book he is also explicitly identified as a divine person.
THIS is what Jesus was referring to. He was calling out the Jews because they knew very well that in their own scriptures and in their own speculations and literature, there would be a man who would be in the divine council, who would be God.
Psalm 82 is another example of the Divine Council meeting.
The listeners would take is that way - this is irrefutable. In a more generous moment they would take it as addressed to all humans. But no instruction is given to fallen angels in the psalms nor does God command fallen angels to "judge justly" as though He had given them any such position after their fall.
They would take Ps 82 as a statement by God to their ancestors.
No. This is how YOU would take it. This is not how a 1st century Jew would take it. You are reading this in a way that is based on how people hundreds of years after the fact understood it, after the previous interpretation had been deliberately changed because people were uncomfortable with it.
The Jews themselves changed how these passages were understood hundreds of years after the time of Christ. If you look at the Septuagint which was translated before the time of Christ, and look at the Masoretic texts which were compiled around 800 AD or the Talmud around 400 to 500 AD you will find that they text is actually different.
In Deuteronomy 32 the Septuagint has "according to the number of the angels of God", the Masoretic has "according to the number of the children of Israel"
Here is what the Septuagint has for Psalm 82:1 A Psalm for Asaph. God stands in the assembly of gods; and in the midst of them will judge gods.
This is how the Jews understood the text before the time of Christ.
35 If
he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart
"those to whom the Word of God came" in the OT - is Israel as
Rom 3:1-4 makes very clear - "theirs is the oracles of God"
my view is explicit -- in the text.
No. It really isn't.
Again, I admit, it is possible to interpret "to whom the word of God came" to mean the Israelites. That isn't a wild leap or a crazy fancy. It is, not, however, the only possible interpretation.
The phrase "the word of the Lord came to..." is used repeatedly in the Old Testament and it is virtually always used of a specific message delivered to a specific person or group, and here is the kicker, BY A PERSON.
Many of us are conditioned to think of the phrase "the word of the Lord came to..." as simply a formal way of saying, I got a message, and that the "word" in question is the message.
However, if you look closely at the OT instances where this happens you will find that the "word of the Lord" is actually a person who is visibly present and who is talking to and interacting with the person being spoken to.
The "word of the Lord" in these contexts does not refer to the scriptures. It refers to a person who is sent with a message. This is undoubtedly the tradition that John is making use of when he identifies Jesus as "The Word" in the beginning of his gospel.
Thus it is entirely possible, and likely, that Jesus is not saying "he called them gods, who received the scriptures" but rather "he called them gods to whom the Word came and spoke.
No true.
His point is that God "called them gods" TO WHOM The WORD of God was written in the Psalms.
Again, no. This is not in the text. This is purely your own assumption and interpretation. What it says is "he called them gods to whom the Word of God came" You are then assuming that the "word of God" in question is the scriptures or more specifically the psalms. That is not a necessary conclusion or assumption.
Psalms was not written to fallen angels and the Jews of Christ's day knew it.
No one is arguing that. What we are talking about is not who the Psalm was written TO, but rather who the Psalm is ABOUT. Who is it describing, not who is it written to.
Moreover, another point is that we should ask the question... If the psalm is describing the Israelites, and God is angry with the Israelites and is judging them... why does the Psalm end with the Psalmist asking God to judge the nations? Kind of a switch isn't it... unless the whole Psalm is talking about the nations under the sway of the pagan fallen gods.
1. It makes perfect sense given the context both of Ps 82 and John 10 where we are speaking specifically of those to whom scripture was written in the Psalms. It is irrefutable.
No, it's not irrefutable. It is arguable, it is possible, not remotely irrefutable.
2. In
Luke 4:4 when demons cry out "YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD" - Jesus commands them to silence. Jesus was not making that claim to the unbelieving Jews until the time of the cross. He revealed it to His followers but not to the general public until later.
Sure, Jesus did conceal his identity for a good portion of his ministry... but are you honestly suggesting that he would deliberately out himself, and then try to conceal it?
Saying to a demon "be quiet" because it wasn't the right time yet, is way different than Jesus himself saying "I'm the Son of God" and then being like "Ha, just kidding!"
Ok, I have a question for you...
Jude 6-7
6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
What angels indulged in a sin like Sodom and Gomorrah, that involved sexual immorality?
Keep in mind that literally 7 verses later Jude quotes the Book of Enoch
It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,...
The very same book that goes into great detail about the Angels known as the Watchers, producing offspring with human women.
Also we have 2nd Peter 2:4-5
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell[a] and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
I admit that you could argue that the angels sinning is separate from the judgement of the ancient world in Noah's day, but doesn't it seem like they are being connected? What angels sinned before and at the time of Noah?
Or also... we know that other fallen angels are not imprisoned and are still out doing things on earth... so who are these group that are imprisoned while the others are still free to roam the earth?
