"Die Like Men" in Psalm 82

[Sargon]

I've been discussing Psalm 82 with an Evangelical fellow through an email exchange. He is respectful and not unfriendly. He asked a couple things that I'd like to get your perspectives on.

I argued that verse 7 implies that the accused are not mortals, because they will "die like men." However, he countered with this:

But let's see if we find any mention of God judging men who claim to be gods. This, after all, would give us a backdrop to a metaphorical Psalm 82. Do we see examples of this kind of thinking? Look at Ezekiel 28:2

[CV75]

I argued that verse 7 implies that the accused are not mortals

It seems that Isaiah 14 (2 Nephi 24) covers all the bases for both immortals and mortals engaged in this pattern of contest, from the pre-existence to the ancient world to the Millennium.

[mfbukowski]

Concerning the Ezekiel passage, I am aware of an argument that the kings of ANE nations, including those of Israel, were considered to be the incarnation of their patron god. I believe I read this in Margaret Barker's work. I'd like more info on this, and any other perspective on how best to respond to this question.

Don't know if I can help much, but I think you are on the right track.

There is a huge difference between someone acting AS IF they are a god while mortal for whatever reason, and the potential to BECOME like God in the eternities. I think essentially the passage is about pride. Since I am not a scholar, that is the tack I would take.

[Ron Beron]

I've been discussing Psalm 82 with an Evangelical fellow through an email exchange. He is respectful and not unfriendly. He asked a couple things that I'd like to get your perspectives on.

I argued that verse 7 implies that the accused are not mortals, because they will "die like men." However, he countered with this:

Concerning the Ezekiel passage, I am aware of an argument that the kings of ANE nations, including those of Israel, were considered to be the incarnation of their patron god. I believe I read this in Margaret Barker's work. I'd like more info on this, and any other perspective on how best to respond to this question.

Thanks a lot.

The passage in Ezekial speaks more of the boasting of men rather than the contextual relationship that god(s) appear in Psalms 82. Psalms places the existence of lesser deities within the venue of a heavenly council while Ezekiel does not rather using 'el' as a literary term of remonstration. Secondly, the god in Ezekiel is the generic 'el' as in Psalms it is the plural 'elohim' which has a different connotation. Third, the Psalms passages speaks of an older Ugartic context while the passage in Ezekiel is addressing a king that understands the Ugartic concept of a the divine king which you mention.

I am not sure of the incarnation bit, but the king is indeed made a divine personage through his association/marriage with Inanna et al. If you can find it the book, Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East ( Uppsala 1943). Kerry Shirts also gives an excellent report on this...http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the_backyard_professor/2009/03/divine-kingship-in-facsimile-3-ancient-near-east.html

[BCSpace]

Sargon,

This is a case of the Bible showing on the one hand that we are divne Gods in one sense (potential, nature) and that we are not on the other (we are still subject to God). From the EV perspective (Sola Scriptura etc.) Neither can be false, but both must be true. For example, the Ezekiel set given simply means he wanted to be God in the wrong way. Same with Lucifer in Isaiah 14.

Look to John 10:34-36 for confirmation that Jehovah meant real and divine Gods in Ps 82. Jesus' comparison here does not make sense if "gods" means human judges. Where is the blasphemy in that?

Since Jesus and Jehovah are the same Person (easy to prove; some EV's don't accept that), use the NT to back up the Christian (and therefore LDS) version of Theosis:

Philippians 2:5-6 What (among other things) was in Jesus' mind that should also be in ours? That it is not robbery to think we can be equal to God.

Revelation 3:21 The saints who overcome will have the same power and authority as God (we will sit in the Father's throne along with Christ).

etc.

Then tell this EV that if he accepts the Bible as the word of God, he must accept Theosis. Of course EV's don't accept the Bible as the word of God at all, rather, they must skip certain verses or elevate the words of Paul over the words of Jesus, etc. to make their doctrine work.

[BCSpace]

Duplicate

[Sargon]

The passage in Ezekial speaks more of the boasting of men rather than the contextual relationship that god(s) appear in Psalms 82. Psalms places the existence of lesser deities within the venue of a heavenly council while Ezekiel does not rather using 'el' as a literary term of remonstration.

I may need you to expand on this a bit. Sure, Psalm 82 is in the context of a heavenly council, but the point seems to be specifically in regard to whether or not men are alluded to when talking about gods. I argued that Psalm 82 says that the wicked judges will "die like men", indicating that they are not men. However, this Evangelical fellow came up with this passage in Ezekiel that basically says the same thing about a man pretending to be a god. My first reaction is that Ezekiel makes specific mention that he is talking about a man, but Psalm 82 makes no mention whatsoever. Furthermore, the passage in Ezek 28:9 simply isn't comparable to Psalm 82:7. The former says that a man who thinks he is a god will die, as proof that he isn't a god. The latter says that actual gods will die.

Though I do have some concern that Ezek 28:9 presupposes that gods by their very nature cannot die. This assumption seems to be crucial to Ezekiel's argument. If this is the case, it might be more difficult to suggest that the gods in Psalm 82 are sentenced to death, something impossible to occur. I am aware however that gods are sentenced to death often in ANE literature, as demonstrated by Bokovoy in his exchange with Heiser.

Secondly, the god in Ezekiel is the generic 'el' as in Psalms it is the plural 'elohim' which has a different connotation.

Can you recommend an essay on that? I'd need to cite a reference or back up the argument if I say that.

Third, the Psalms passages speaks of an older Ugartic context while the passage in Ezekiel is addressing a king that understands the Ugartic concept of a the divine king which you mention.

Are you suggesting here that each presupposes the same "divine council" tradition? I'm not sure how I can show that.

I am not sure of the incarnation bit, but the king is indeed made a divine personage through his association/marriage with Inanna et al. If you can find it the book, Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East ( Uppsala 1943). Kerry Shirts also gives an excellent report on this...http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the_backyard_professor/2009/03/divine-kingship-in-facsimile-3-ancient-near-east.html

Well, incarnation may not be the best word. Thanks for the references, I'll check them out.

[ebeddoulos]

I differ in opinion from your friend. Psalms 82:6-7 affirms our godly lineage and our divine potential but says that we, being mortal, must die just as Jesus Christ, the Prince of Life, had to die.

[maklelan]

I've been discussing Psalm 82 with an Evangelical fellow through an email exchange. He is respectful and not unfriendly. He asked a couple things that I'd like to get your perspectives on.

I argued that verse 7 implies that the accused are not mortals, because they will "die like men." However, he countered with this:

He's incorrect. We don't see anything comparable to "you will die like a human." We see, "You're not a god, but a human," which, even within the rhetorical context, does not arrogate to the individual any divine qualities. The author makes clear the divinity of the individual is inappropriately averred. It is never even sarcastically assumed by the author. Psalm 82 is distinct for three reasons. (1) there is no accusation of pretending to be divine, and (2) the author makes no statement to the effect that their divine attributes are at all improper, and (3) the author even asserts their divinity in v. 6.

Concerning the Ezekiel passage, I am aware of an argument that the kings of ANE nations, including those of Israel, were considered to be the incarnation of their patron god. I believe I read this in Margaret Barker's work. I'd like more info on this, and any other perspective on how best to respond to this question.

I would say this is more accurate for Egypt than anywhere else. Syria Palestine had a belief in the divinity of dead kings (a type of euhemerism), and Babylonian kings have intermittently claimed to be divine, but Psalm 82 is far more closely related to the Canaanite worldview. It's clearly an allusion to the deities set over the nations in Deut 32:8.

I've only had time to get through a little of the responses you sent me earlier. I assume they're from the same individual, who leans rather exclusively on the assumption that this rhetoric is aimed at individuals claiming to be divine. His assumption is not only not supported, but is all but precluded. As the Ezekiel text shows, the author will make that explicit in propaganda against those rulers. Psalm 82:6 makes no such claim (in fact the author asserts their divinity in v. 6), and rather than explaining that their claims are illegitimate, the author claims that their failure as rulers will result in their dying like the humans die (and not "die a human being"). Lastly, when rulers claim divinity and are not divine, the authors will say "you claim you are divine," not "you're divine," and not "Hey, divine guys," and especially not "You are gods." His assertions are completely misplaced.

[Ron Beron]

Sargon' writes,

I may need you to expand on this a bit. Sure, Psalm 82 is in the context of a heavenly council, but the point seems to be specifically in regard to whether or not men are alluded to when talking about gods. I argued that Psalm 82 says that the wicked judges will "die like men", indicating that they are not men. However, this Evangelical fellow came up with this passage in Ezekiel that basically says the same thing about a man pretending to be a god. My first reaction is that Ezekiel makes specific mention that he is talking about a man, but Psalm 82 makes no mention whatsoever. Furthermore, the passage in Ezek 28:9 simply isn't comparable to Psalm 82:7. The former says that a man who thinks he is a god will die, as proof that he isn't a god. The latter says that actual gods will die.

I think you are on the right track.

First, ANE gods did die. They were not impervious to death. Check out the Enuma Elish and there is plenty of death among the gods going on.

Secondly, you are correct in pointing out Ezekiel is about the discussion being about men not gods while Psalms is not about men but god within the context of the heavenly or divine council. Specifically, the king of Tyre, a Phoenician would have considered himself a living deity through his marriage and association with the gods. Ezekiel would have set him straight. Contrast this scripture with the one in Isaiah 14:12-15 which similarly invokes the fruitlessness of divine assumption among the kings. As to a source you could look at I would recommend Julian Morgenstern's "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82", Hebrew Union College Annual, XIV [1939], 29-126).

Though I do have some concern that Ezek 28:9 presupposes that gods by their very nature cannot die. This assumption seems to be crucial to Ezekiel's argument. If this is the case, it might be more difficult to suggest that the gods in Psalm 82 are sentenced to death, something impossible to occur. I am aware however that gods are sentenced to death often in ANE literature, as demonstrated by Bokovoy in his exchange with Heiser.

I wrote earlier about this..

."I read Ps. 82:6-7 where God passes judgement on all of us

[maklelan]

Sargon' writes,

I think you are on the right track.

First, ANE gods did die. They were not impervious to death. Check out the Enuma Elish and there is plenty of death among the gods going on.

You also have Baal, the Syro-Palestinian equivalent of Yahweh being killed by Mot ("Death"). In Enuma Elish Tiamat dies, as does Kingu, whose blood is used to create humanity.

Secondly, you are correct in pointing out Ezekiel is about the discussion being about men not gods while Psalms is not about men but god within the context of the heavenly or divine council. Specifically, the king of Tyre, a Phoenician would have considered himself a living deity through his marriage and association with the gods. Ezekiel would have set him straight. Contrast this scripture with the one in Isaiah 14:12-15 which similarly invokes the fruitlessness of divine assumption among the kings. As to a source you could look at I would recommend Julian Morgenstern's "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82", Hebrew Union College Annual, XIV [1939], 29-126).

More up-to-date would be Simon B. Parker, "The Beginning of the Reign of God--Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy," Revue Biblique 102.4 (1995): 532-59. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best analysis of the chapter that's ever been done.

I wrote earlier about this..

What we don

[Sargon]

I plan to write my dissertation on this or a closely related topic, so there will be a new standard in a few years.

Careful now, let's see it before we start calling it a "new standard"! But seriously, good luck with it. I look forward to it (3-4 years?).

[Lightbearer]

Not being a scholar I do not really know if I should comment, but one thought occurred to me. Is he saying that a God cannot die? If so I would ask if Christ was a God, and did He die?

Just a thought.

[Sargon]

Thank you all for your thoughts on this. Hopefully more people than just myself learned something.

[maklelan]

Not being a scholar I do not really know if I should comment, but one thought occurred to me. Is he saying that a God cannot die? If so I would ask if Christ was a God, and did He die?

Just a thought.

Christians who reject that Psalm 82 is speaking of real gods will respond that only Christ's human side died. His divine side did not die, and so gods cannot die.

[Ron Beron]

More up-to-date would be Simon B. Parker, "The Beginning of the Reign of God--Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy," Revue Biblique 102.4 (1995): 532-59. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best analysis of the chapter that's ever been done.

Thanks for adding this one. I haven't seen it. I am sure that we'll see more in the future.

[hagoth7]

Concerning the Ezekiel passage, I am aware of an argument that the kings of ANE nations, including those of Israel, were considered to be the incarnation of their patron god.

A type and a shadow might be somewhat more accurate. Mebbe even a poor reflection.

Otherwise the repeated denouncements of Israelite kings via the prophets make no contextual sense.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you all for your thoughts on this. Hopefully more people than just myself learned something.

Yeah, yeah, I told you all this in the first post!

[Sargon]

A type and a shadow might be somewhat more accurate. Mebbe even a poor reflection.

Otherwise the repeated denouncements of Israelite kings via the prophets make no contextual sense.

I think all it means is that that particular prophet didn't think the king was a true representative of the national deity, much less an incarnation of him. Perhaps "incarnation" wasn't the best word.

I recall Barker writing that the High Priest/King entered the Holy of Holies with a metal plate on his forehead that had the sacred tetragrammaton on it (YHWH), suggesting that the high priest was viewed as YHWH's earthly counterpart of sorts, the Messiah .

[Sargon]

Christians who reject that Psalm 82 is speaking of real gods will respond that only Christ's human side died. His divine side did not die, and so gods cannot die.

Ya, the ol' "hypostatic union" trick. It's an easy out as far I see it. I suppose the thing to do would be to ask said Christian where he got that idea from...the Bible?

Although, on second thought, I wonder if believing that only the human side of Christ died is a heresy. It seems that the atonement (including death) would have needed to have been performed by a god in order to have salvific efficacy. That was the primary argument Athanasius employed against the Arians....that Christ had to be fully god in order to satisfactorily perform the atonement.

[Sargon]

You also have Baal, the Syro-Palestinian equivalent of Yahweh being killed by Mot ("Death"). In Enuma Elish Tiamat dies, as does Kingu, whose blood is used to create humanity.

More up-to-date would be Simon B. Parker, "The Beginning of the Reign of God--Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy," Revue Biblique 102.4 (1995): 532-59. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best analysis of the chapter that's ever been done.

E. Theodore Mullen's The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, from 1980, is a little outdated but one of the most comprehensive studies done to date. Michael Heiser's dissertation is also good, although he buys into a lot of the same assumptions as Mullen about Yahweh/El and the role of angels, and so forth. I plan to write my dissertation on this or a closely related topic, so there will be a new standard in a few years.

I read most of Mullen's work. It was quite good, but a bit over my head at the time (probably still is). I haven't read Parker yet, though I recall Bokovoy discussing his ideas some article in the FARMS Review. Maybe I'm confusing it with Peterson in his Psalm 82 article. Maybe it is both.

As for Heiser, the guy is brilliant but I can't forgive him for his "species unique" idea. It strikes me as slightly hypocritical (respectfully) that he accuses Christians of "theologically protecting God" with their various misinterpretations of Psalm 82, while he seems to be doing just that with his "species unique" approach. But, I'm just an armchair wannabe, who I am to criticize.

[hagoth7]

I recall Barker writing that the High Priest/King entered the Holy of Holies with a metal plate on his forehead that had the sacred tetragrammaton on it (YHWH), suggesting that the high priest was viewed as YHWH's earthly counterpart of sorts, the Messiah .

My understanding of the plate was that it simply signified God's ownership/claim.

Similar to the "seal of God" vs. the "mark of the beast" in the Book of Revelation.

So if that's an accurate depiction of Barker's writing, I disagree with her assertion.

[Ron Beron]

My understanding of the plate was that it simply signified God's ownership/claim.

Similar to the "seal of God" vs. the "mark of the beast" in the Book of Revelation.

So if that's an accurate depiction of Barker's writing, I disagree with her assertion.

I have never read Barker's comments on this, according to the Talmud, the wearing of the tzitz atoned for the sin of arrogance on the part of the the children of Israel. In some ways she might be correct in that Aaron or the high priest was a representative of iniquities of the people. Conflating the atonement of Jesus and scapegoating of Aaron is interesting.

36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and engrave upon it, like the engravings of a signet: HOLY TO THE LORD.

37 And thou shalt put it on a thread of blue, and it shall be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.

38 And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow, even in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

This YouTube segment is interesting.

[maklelan]

I read most of Mullen's work. It was quite good, but a bit over my head at the time (probably still is). I haven't read Parker yet, though I recall Bokovoy discussing his ideas some article in the FARMS Review. Maybe I'm confusing it with Peterson in his Psalm 82 article. Maybe it is both.

As for Heiser, the guy is brilliant but I can't forgive him for his "species unique" idea. It strikes me as slightly hypocritical (respectfully) that he accuses Christians of "theologically protecting God" with their various misinterpretations of Psalm 82, while he seems to be doing just that with his "species unique" approach. But, I'm just an armchair wannabe, who I am to criticize.

Yeah, there's really no grounds for a "species unique" doctrine in the Bible. The only taxonomical category that separates YHWH from anyone else in the Bible is the title 'elohim, which, as Heiser recognizes, refers to the entire divine council, and even rarely to dead kings and angels. YHWH has no other distinctive categorization, outside of "God of Gods" and "King of Gods," which don't support species uniqueness. YHWH's transcendence rather indicates his dominance of his own genus, which is comparable to El's dominance within the Syro-Palestinian pantheon, from which Israel derives much of its worldview. Heiser also must mitigate the fact that the text of the Hebrew Bible comes to us through the lenses of Second Temple Period Jews, which expands metaphorically upon the early motifs (if they are preserved at all), which dilutes the early doctrines considerably. They also weren't necessarily privy to many of the pre-exilic doctrines, and are simply interpreting literary formulas, much as we are today. Heiser rejects the idea that YHWH and El were originally distinct deities, which, in my opinion, is an indefensible position. And finally, Heiser appears to assume the univocality of the entire Bible (at least in his upcoming book's definition of 'elohim), which is simply wrong.